It's interesting that in many countries of the EU, or even in the EU as a whole, all this is simply not possible.
Not because of dark patterns being illegal, but rather because they would not be profitable.<p>As an example, in Germany:<p>First, a contract only exists when - in a somewhat metaphysical sense - two matching agreements are made. One by Tesla, one by the customer.
Accidental purchases regularly do not constitute an agreement by the customer, which is why before a court, it would be decided that the contract does not, and in fact did not exist. Here, it would be especially trivial to show that the purchase was accidental. Indeed it would probably be enough to have contacted Tesla after the "purchase". As an implication, Tesla would be forced to roll back the transaction and eat any costs associated with it.<p>Second, and of more practical relevance, there is legislation mandating that anything ordered online can be returned within 14 days, retroactively voiding the contract. In this case, the customer may need to pay some of the costs incurred with rolling back the transaction, although there is legislation for this. In this particular case, a software update, the cost would of course be zero.<p>I personally do not see these legislation as a source of friction. They are simple to implement and fair, and have no impact if one does not rely on deception.<p>As others have said, anyone doing business in the EU is aware of these matters. If these patterns do not exist in the EU version, then Tesla is employing these patterns for deceptive purposes.