I’m wanting to buy an EV. But I’m very worried about the legal protections I will have in Australia for the software that the car requires to operate. Consider, for example, a Tesla. You don’t really buy a car when you buy a Tesla, you rent the software that remains the property of Elon Musk’s industries who can choose to immobilise your car or any feature of it at any time. And if Tesla goes bankrupt, how will the software on that Tesla I bought be maintained and updated? Will the Tesla stop operating without cloud services? Will it become a brick, unable to move?
I’m using Tesla as an example, as they are the most well known of the EV manufacturers. But my point applies to all modern cars: not just EV’s. It seems that technology here is running well ahead of consumer rights and government legislation. It would be great if Choice could advocate for change in this area in Australia.
It is possibly broader than ‘smart cars’. It applies to software, digital content (e.g. purchased movies or music) and online content (such as on social media platforms). A lot of times these aren’t owned.
It instead is licensed out to the user who purchases it, either wholly or via subscription. Alternatively content one puts online is owned by someone else.
Often one can’t pass it on to someone else, like in the past someone gifting or selling a CD/DVD.
Smart cars are similar. Sell a Tesla through Tesla and any additional ‘technology upgrade packages’ aren’t transferable to a new owner. Telsa removes them as soon as they know the vehicle has been sold. One might test drive a Tesla on the basis it is installed, only to find it is removed post sale.
To me this is double dipping and renders and digital purchases valueless from an asset point of view.
I agree with you. I chose cars as a starting point as they are one of the more expensive purchases we make - and so more likely to focus people’s minds. I believe this area needs strong government protection: but sadly the government is asleep at the wheel.
Your point about Tesla is also a good one: currently people who buy used Japanese Tesla imports in New Zealand are, I believe, in the position that you describe.
For example, you don’t really own your mobile phone. It is almost completely controlled by the software and services from the manufacturer, and it is basically not possible to operate the device offline so as to reassert some kind of ownership.
As you say, the problem is even worse than cars and phones.
We could certainly start with the more expensive stuff e.g. cars, PV equipment, TVs, phones. And as we rush towards home automation (not me!) you could even insert your home at the front of that list.
I wonder what will happen when the digital generation starts to die off. Selling an item is one thing but there is also the possibility of transmission in a deceased estate.
Does the government care? Is the government part of the problem?
This is my main concern with buying a connected car in future. Has anyone had experience with software features becoming unavailable in their car due to the hardware no longer being supported? Does it matter given Apple Carplay and Android Auto allow you to run most features from your phone?
I guess my Zeekr 7X is a “smart car”, since it has OTA software updates. Very happy with it so far after 3000km of driving in the past 6 weeks. I’d have to check exact costs, but only about $100 in DC charging expense so far, mostly charged at home.
As with most things software, save for having to pay subscriptions for use at some point they will stop updating but the vehicle will continue to work just sans software fixes and features being added.
A problem depending on Carplay and Auto are that many intrinsic functions cannot be controlled by an external device, eg a mobile. While arguable, consider the issues for an autopilot/cruise control and similar features. If a phone could access the intra-vehicle network so could a hacker ringing in. At 100kph the USB gets accidentally pulled or the BT/WiFi jams…
Also seriously, w/could a bad actor simply disable all of their vehicles in a given geographic area in time of conflict? No need to reply.
I raised this topic with the motoring correspondent of a major newspaper, when I was investigating options for a new car. This was in the context that if an owner paid for software enhancements then when the car was sold these did not transfer to the new owner, who would need to purchase them again if the features were required. The point I was making was that I thought professional reviewers should make this aspect of electric vehicles more widely known.
The response I received was that it was only Tesla that adopted this practice. I did not verify this independently, but I did cross Tesla off my list of options. This was before Elon Musk became embroiled in politics and my decision was based entirely of by my perception of the cars on sale.
Good on you for raising this. I think motoring journalists are doing us a major disservice by ignoring the implications of the computers in the cars they review. I took a BYD Atto 1 for a test drive and that car is incredibly software dependent. If I buy one the power imbalance between me, the car “owner” and BYD is dramatic. They can do whatever software upgrade/changes that they want - and there is no way I can control or stop them - even if the upgrade removes features that I use.
Fair to ask the question, but is BYD any different in values than any other brand/ manufacturer? To suggest it is not. To also consider consumers may see little different in principle to how it is (and has been for many years) for a smart TV or Mobile Phone/device. Laptops and PC’s possibly a little more flexible, although for the Bios and Drivers one may be very much in the handles of the brand/manufacturers.
Stating the obvious though the average motor vehicle these days is a factor of 10-20 or more times as expensive to replace compared to the lesser purchases previously mentioned.
The ACL may provide some relief in the future if a manufacturer causes changes that the ACCC or a court of law determine are significant and major. Would one have purchased the vehicle in question if one knew a particular feature was going to be removed or changed? However what one consumer considers major may differ - such are individual preferences and needs when purchasing a vehicle. It’s possible changing how it performs those duties may not be significant enough providing a vehicle remains able to perform the principle duties for which it was purchased?
Tesla isn’t “Elon Musk Industries” - he owns a mere 13%.
Meanwhile, many other brands have Subscription Services. In the case of Toyota, you start paying after 12 months, but theoretically can drive quite OK without paying.
My new petrol VW came with 5 years pre-paid, and my plan is to sell before then, though the car should work fine without it. However, there is no list I can find about what would cease to work apart from the Navigation. The IQ Travel Assist should still work apart from the native navigation directions.
TESLA is a well established company too, and likely to be as secure.
HOWEVER - some of the newly arriving Chinese brands - could be “good luck with that”.
A concerning issue is once those prepaid services come to an end some manufacturers abandon the vehicle. To wit, my 2019 Renault is no longer supported by anything - I cannot even buy a map upgrade for any price. It is a Tomtom carminat, not in receivership. The map could be a first world problem but as the subscriptions and what they cover proliferates it is not reassuring how it is going to go.
The manufacturer’s motto seems to be ‘you bought the pup, gotcha!’.
Some will say it is how software is. Some software depends on newer hardware but for my point maps are not software per se, but need to be delivered in a package that can be installed. Many things come down to management decisions, often advised by their view of P/L and whether it will sell another car or be profitable enough, not just profitable, to keep ‘it’ going.
What will be the outcome as more vehicles with the latest in smart features and included digital services become more common in the secondhand market. Will the original owners find resale values falling more than expected? Will not having access to even the best of the previous years features reduces the appeal of the vehicle? Better to buy new with the latest than a crippled version of 4-5 year old tech!
The cynic here suggests it is a conscious ploy by the automotive industry to make older vehicles less attractive. IE To encourage favour of the latest and increase churn (sales) to newer vehicles. It’s no surprise the majority see mobile phones (trend setting) more as disposable consumables than a keep for life. OTOH there are some amongst us who would prefer to keep what we have for many years.
And that could easily be inconsistent with Australian law in the sense that no warranty conditions can override your warranty rights under ACL.
Except that when the second owner pays again for the same thing that the first owner already paid for … the second owner did not as such ever agree to the conditions that arose from the contract between Tesla and the first owner, because the second owner was not a party to that contract, and the contract for sale between the first owner and the second owner may or may not cover these aspects at all.
Bottom line: Government, step in! These contract conditions are garbage. Nip this in the bud!
Of course a car manufacturer can always move to a subscription model where the owner pays every year, regardless of any changes of ownership.
That change to a multiple-dipping model could even be reasonable if the annual charge is much less than the former one-off charge; and this would address any issues with sale.
However it may then be that the advertising of a motor vehicle for sale would by a new law have to disclose the annual cost in addition to the purchase cost. (This is somewhat similar to advertising for sale of real estate although such disclosure may not be required by law.)
Not to mention that this could imply that the government (and others) can track your car’s movements 24x7.
So not only are you agreeing to losing features at the whim of the car manufacturer but you are potentially agreeing to that additional surveillance.
There are parts of Australia where it is anything but a first world problem i.e. not having an accurate map could be life and death. (The lack of mobile signal means that you absolutely cannot rely on your mobile phone with an online map as a backup to a proper offline map. With a grunty1 enough phone you can of course download maps onto the phone before leaving i.e. make the phone use an offline map.)
It could be argued that if you are going off the beaten track, the onus is on you to have an up-to-date map, but you wonder whether and how cars necessarily even communicate the fact that map updates were quietly dropped when the car itself is quietly dropped.
1 The web says that the entire OpenStreetMap (OSM) dataset is 100 GB compressed and 2 TB uncompressed. But it is unlikely that any trip will require the entire dataset.
In any case, it is foreseeable that not many years in the future you will be able to get mobile data via satellite (at reasonable prices) and this whole problem will be less severe.
I was watching a TV show about EVs from the UK on SBS. A lot of the program was centered on Chinese manufacturers, perhaps because so many are coming out of China.
One gentleman interviewed was really screwed because the manufacturer had gone bankrupt and since it was unable to pay its bills the software that supported most of the cars functions had stopped working because the 3rd party supplier stopped software support.
I’m not in the market for an EV but that was a scary thought.
Note that the risk isn’t limited to EVs. Most new vehicles are ‘smart’ ones that rely on software to function. ICEVs as well as EVs and hybrids.
And the international vehicle industry is pretty unstable at the moment, expanding and changing rapidly. It might not only be Chinese vehicle companies that fail in the next few years.
The Chinese vehicle industry certainly isn’t sustainable as it currently stands, having produced a very large number of startups and a lot of failures. More will inevitably go before the industry settles down.
Three fairly significant Chinese EV companies on display at a major 2024 Chinese auto show didn’t make it through 2025: Ji Yue, Neta, and Yuanhang.
Keep in mind that these are just three brands that I knew had active stands at the Beijing Auto Show. Other brands like HiPhi, Aiways or Evergrande Auto also bit the dust last year, albeit well before the show.
China has a lot of great EVs and EV brands, but there’s no way in hell it can support so many brands doing the same thing. Even with government subsidies and more than a billion potential customers, these numbers aren’t sustainable.
As time marches onward, the market will only continue to consolidate. Soon, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of China’s larger EV makers drop out or join forces, especially if export markets remain somewhat hostile to imported EVs from China.
Chinese electric vehicles are spreading fast across global markets, fueled by booming demand and strong backing from Beijing. In November alone, China’s EV exports jumped 87 percent compared to the same month last year. Yet even with this rapid growth, cracks are starting to show.
The year 2026 is shaping up to be a major turning point for China’s EV sector, with a looming shakeout expected to hit dozens of struggling manufacturers.
