You probably didn't waste time reading the various links in the article, but I understand if you hate the person. By the way, the accusations are so serious that if they were false, they could take him to court in an instant, but let's not get into that; it's not my place to defend Cory Doctorow here.
Indeed, this statement is a bit strong and, said like that, seems absolutely false. But, following the various links to his previous articles, I believe he was referring to his old article:
Tesla sells both 60kWh and 75kWh versions of its Model S and Model X cars; but these cars have identical batteries — the 60kWh version runs software that simply misreports the capacity of the battery to the charging apparatus and the car’s owner.
https://memex.craphound.com/2017/09/10/teslas-demon-haunted-cars-in-irmas-path-get-a-temporary-battery-life-boost/
BTW, you were complaining that all of this has nothing to do with my initial post. It absolutely does. In both cases, there's a distortion of the concept of property.
In the first case, the major music labels do you the favor of letting you listen to "their" music.
In the case Andrew cited, Bloomberg claims to have the copyright even on a POTUS speech.
In the magical world of subscription, you don't own a f*** thing and they can revoke everything at any moment. In all cases, you are only enabled to consume.
Maybe it's too left-wing? And yet the strong concept of private property and possession of a good doesn't come from there.
Ciao