Photo: Tesla
At first, it may seem unfair that Kevin Shenkman decided to sue Tesla for its Supercharging for life promises. The company established a fee for people that leave their cars charging for more time than they should, which may sound entirely reasonable. The problem is that people who theoretically had that right are losing it due to these “congestion fees.”
According to what Bloomberg reported, Shenkman alleges that Tesla charged him this fee not for leaving the car plugged in for the whole day but for not returning to his vehicle almost immediately after being charged. In some Supercharging stations, Tesla also imposes a limited time for supercharging so that everybody can put some juice back in their battery packs.
There was no dispute for these charging points in the early days, but the Model 3 increased the demand for them exponentially. That was when Tesla started cutting the offer of Supercharging for life.
Clarifying the circumstances in which Shenkman was penalized would require that we had access to the lawsuit, which we will try to solve as soon as possible. Regardless of which they were, Shenkman refused to pay these congestion fees. The consequences are the only part of the lawsuit that Bloomberg quoted.
In it, Shenkman said that Tesla cut off “Supercharging access entirely” to people that – like him – refused to pay such fees, “thus disabling a feature for which customers paid thousands of dollars extra to obtain.”
The legal terms for the “Supercharging for life” promise are probably something Shenkman and his lawyers went after to claim that Tesla cannot cut access to the Supercharging network.
Curiously, Supercharging for life was something that even owners of salvaged cars had, such as Rich Benoit. That lasted until Tesla decided to cut off these owners with the excuse that there was a safety hazard involved. Jason Hughes recently said that this allegation is not correct and that Tesla just wants to sell new cars.
As a class-action, Shenkman’s lawsuit will affect all other Tesla customers that also had Supercharging for life. Bloomberg tried to contact Tesla, but the company does not talk to the press anymore unless in China and Norway – when it wants to do so, mind you.
There was no dispute for these charging points in the early days, but the Model 3 increased the demand for them exponentially. That was when Tesla started cutting the offer of Supercharging for life.
Clarifying the circumstances in which Shenkman was penalized would require that we had access to the lawsuit, which we will try to solve as soon as possible. Regardless of which they were, Shenkman refused to pay these congestion fees. The consequences are the only part of the lawsuit that Bloomberg quoted.
In it, Shenkman said that Tesla cut off “Supercharging access entirely” to people that – like him – refused to pay such fees, “thus disabling a feature for which customers paid thousands of dollars extra to obtain.”
The legal terms for the “Supercharging for life” promise are probably something Shenkman and his lawyers went after to claim that Tesla cannot cut access to the Supercharging network.
Curiously, Supercharging for life was something that even owners of salvaged cars had, such as Rich Benoit. That lasted until Tesla decided to cut off these owners with the excuse that there was a safety hazard involved. Jason Hughes recently said that this allegation is not correct and that Tesla just wants to sell new cars.
As a class-action, Shenkman’s lawsuit will affect all other Tesla customers that also had Supercharging for life. Bloomberg tried to contact Tesla, but the company does not talk to the press anymore unless in China and Norway – when it wants to do so, mind you.
Google News