If you have the right to return a 3-year-old car with collision damage and get a 100% ful refund, then they will NEVER change the TOS and ask you to agree.
Also, this was the Uniform Commerical Code (UCC) for many years until they decided (IIRC) that software was not subject to the UCC. Maybe we can make the case that software has come of age and fraud is now fraud?
If the claim is that there's something fundamental about car software that makes this less possible than literally every other type of software in existence, the burden is on the car companies to prove it. I strongly doubt this is the case, but if it is, I'd argue that the more prudent thing is to just _not_ keep adding features, because fixing bugs for the multi-ton behemoths hurtling alongside one another at high speeds sounds more important than literally anything that they could provide to the car that people have already decided is worthy of purchasing with the current set of features.