Watching Tesla’s video of a door-to-door self driving car offers an amazing glimpse into an autonomous and robotic future

But there was also a disturbing footnote to the announcement: you are not allowed to let your self-driving Tesla operate as part of Uber or Lyft, only as part of some forthcoming Tesla network.

Now you might ask, is such a restriction legal? Haven’t I, as the purchaser, paid for the car? And normally, once I have paid for a car, doesn’t the manufacturer have no further say in what I do with the car? Well historically yes, but we are witnessing the fascinating encroachment of Software Enduser License Agreements (EULAs) on physical objects, as those objects embed more and more software.

The EULA allows for all sort of usage restrictions based on the argument that you have not actually purchased the software but rather licensed it. A license establishes an ongoing relationship with the software vendor in which the vendor can restrict how you use the software. The joke has long been that the most common lie people make these days is to check a box or click a button that says something like “I have read the EULA” (or Terms of Service for something that’s hosted). The agreements are so long and their language so lawyerly that of course nobody actually reads them.

The fact that nobody reads the EULA or Terms of Service has encouraged companies to stick all sorts of new restrictions in there, such as forcing binding arbitration instead of regular recourse via the legal system. It also makes it possible to add the kind of usage restrictions that Tesla is looking for.

At present course and speed it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where you get a pace maker implanted and then have restrictions as a person on where you can go or what activities you can carry out based on the EULA for the embedded software. It is high time we collectively re-evaluate what kind of conditions and restrictions should be imposable on consumers via a EULA or Terms of Service.

Watching Tesla’s video of a door-to-door self driving car offers an amazing glimpse into an autonomous and robotic future

But there was also a disturbing footnote to the announcement: you are not allowed to let your self-driving Tesla operate as part of Uber or Lyft, only as part of some forthcoming Tesla network.

Now you might ask, is such a restriction legal? Haven’t I, as the purchaser, paid for the car? And normally, once I have paid for a car, doesn’t the manufacturer have no further say in what I do with the car? Well historically yes, but we are witnessing the fascinating encroachment of Software Enduser License Agreements (EULAs) on physical objects, as those objects embed more and more software.

The EULA allows for all sort of usage restrictions based on the argument that you have not actually purchased the software but rather licensed it. A license establishes an ongoing relationship with the software vendor in which the vendor can restrict how you use the software. The joke has long been that the most common lie people make these days is to check a box or click a button that says something like “I have read the EULA” (or Terms of Service for something that’s hosted). The agreements are so long and their language so lawyerly that of course nobody actually reads them.

The fact that nobody reads the EULA or Terms of Service has encouraged companies to stick all sorts of new restrictions in there, such as forcing binding arbitration instead of regular recourse via the legal system. It also makes it possible to add the kind of usage restrictions that Tesla is looking for.

At present course and speed it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where you get a pace maker implanted and then have restrictions as a person on where you can go or what activities you can carry out based on the EULA for the embedded software. It is high time we collectively re-evaluate what kind of conditions and restrictions should be imposable on consumers via a EULA or Terms of Service.