I could see an argument that Buyer 1 was accidentally given this feature, if it was not advertised as present, and if there was no way for Buyer 1 to know the feature was enabled at that time (auctions probably don't have test drives).
Under those circumstances, the fact that it was in fact enabled was sort of a windfall to Buyer 1. If Tesla could have pulled it back and notified Buyer 1 prior to the subsequent sale to Buyer 2, maybe this wouldn't seem so bad. But to hit Buyer 2 with this — especially since Buyer 2 is a person, not a business — makes this very unsavory.
The Monroney sticker is only valid for new cars. Yes, the car had FSD when it was new. What Tesla alleges is that when they re-sold the car at auction, they didn’t include FSD.
Let’s say a car had a motor swap from a V8 to a V6, and is then sold at auction. Pointing at the Monroney sticker to say the car was sold with a V8 is not relevant.
Except it wasn't swapped ,it had the v8 in it, as also advertised, and then post auction they broke into your garage and swapped for the v6 because they were unhappy with their final sales price. If the sticker was on the car uncorrected, I beelieve it would hold up in court as advertising.
One issue that I have with that explanation is that the Monroney may not necessarily be the sole contract between Tesla and the dealer. Without hearing the dealer's side of the story, this part is hard to know conclusively.
Under those circumstances, the fact that it was in fact enabled was sort of a windfall to Buyer 1. If Tesla could have pulled it back and notified Buyer 1 prior to the subsequent sale to Buyer 2, maybe this wouldn't seem so bad. But to hit Buyer 2 with this — especially since Buyer 2 is a person, not a business — makes this very unsavory.