More than 170,000 China-built Teslas were sold in South Korea from 2023 onward. In 2025, reportedly 99% of new Tesla sales in the country could not legally activate Full Self-Driving. Buyers paid 9.043 million won — roughly $6,726 — in a lump-sum purchase for software many could not lawfully run. Now Citizens United for Consumer Sovereignty plans to file a formal complaint with the Korea Fair Trade Commission, alleging Tesla marketed FSD to tens of thousands of customers without adequately disclosing that most of their vehicles were ineligible to use it.
The 20% Problem
Tesla Korea’s own country manager drew the boundary himself.
Tesla Korea country manager Seo Young-deuk testified that Full Self-Driving could legally operate on roughly 20% of Teslas registered in South Korea. Those were U.S.-manufactured vehicles benefiting from safety-standard recognition under the U.S.–South Korea free trade agreement. Roughly the remaining 80% were built in China. South Korea has no equivalent arrangement recognizing Chinese vehicle standards, meaning China-built models require separate local certification before FSD can legally operate — certification Tesla reportedly only began seeking recently, more than three years after it started collecting full payment for the software.
Key details from the complaint:
- More than 170,000 China-made Teslas sold in South Korea from 2023 onward
- In 2025, 99% of new Teslas sold in South Korea reportedly could not legally activate FSD
- Lump-sum purchase price: 9.043 million won (~$6,726)
- Tesla allegedly marketed FSD as “coming soon” and published a South Korea-filmed demonstration video without clearly disclosing that only a small fraction of vehicles were eligible
- The consumer group is asking the KFTC to halt FSD marketing to ineligible vehicle owners, impose administrative fines, and refer the matter to state investigators
Tesla Korea’s country manager testified that FSD could legally operate on roughly 20% of Teslas registered in South Korea — meaning 4 in 5 buyers paid for software they couldn’t lawfully activate.
A Court Win That Changes Nothing
Winning a contract case and running transparent advertising are two entirely separate legal questions.
Eighty-eight Tesla owners already pursued refunds through Seoul Central District Court — and lost. The court found Tesla had not breached its contract: some functions had already been delivered, and additional features depended on technological development and regulatory approvals. That ruling addressed a contract dispute. The planned KFTC complaint is a separate regulatory proceeding. Its central question is different and sharper: did Tesla’s “coming soon” framing, its Seoul-filmed demonstration video, and the absence of clear eligibility disclosures mislead buyers before they paid? A court finding no contractual breach does not resolve whether the company’s marketing met consumer-protection standards — those are separate legal standards evaluated by separate authorities.
Whether the KFTC accepts the complaint and what it finds will help determine whether Tesla’s promotional approach crossed into conduct that Korean consumer-protection rules consider deceptive — a question the civil court’s ruling left entirely open.
