I’m sure he is like, ok guess I’ll get that Lambo then.

It’s just part of a larger trend where companies are virtue signaling. That’s a buzz phrase some hate because it’s used by the right wing frequently but it really does fit this trend. These companies do not really care. I believe it will eventually backfire and will not age well.

Sounds like free brand publicity. Not that anyone cares.

One doesn’t just buy a Ferrari and set off into the sunset.
One needs to get permission first to own and drive one.
If you fuck up you lose it.
Weird but true.

Hence I don’t have one.

It’s just more vapid silliness typical to the rareified excesses attributed to the idle rich. It’s a demeaning glitch on Ferrari’s reputation because it is a foolish effort to impose an unenforceable restriction on those on whom its existence exclusively depends.

@HP I don’t know what’s actually the case for Ferrari at this point, but in theory, having high standards for whom one sells their luxury products to, could create a sense of cache` and buzz that might cause many more sales than it costs them.

It’s dumb on 2 counts. The first is that the product itself, though an engineering masterpiece, is by its expense restricted to those typically distinguished for vulgar and tasteless excess. Logic then dictates the impossibility of Ferrari’s enforcement of the restriction. What idiot believes there is no one willing to sell Bieber the Ferrari of his choosing?

First world problem.

Who cares about Justin Bieber anyway?

@HP But anyone who sells a Ferrari to him will also be blacklisted and never own another.

Bieber’s attempt to modify it is considered by some as desecration.

That is the theory. But as with most such ideals, they must succumb to the corrosive force of money. SOMEONE will supply Beiber or any other Ferrari excommunicate the Ferrari of his choice FOR THE RIGHT PRICE.

I wonder how legal this is for Ferrari to blacklist Bieber. Once he buys the vehicle, it’s his to do with as wishes. On what rational basis can the ban him from future purchases? Isn’t that akin to not really selling him the vehicle fully in the first place?

Suppose I bought a $40,000,000 Van Gogh painting. I decide I don’t like it so I take my pocket knife and shred it into little pieces. Does the auction company have anything to say? Can the Van Gogh descendants refuse to sell to me in the future?

I don’t see that as an apt analogy, @elbanditoroso. Your Van Gogh is a one-of-a-kind original, a world treasure. I could see comparing the Ferrari to, say, a mansion, which could conceivably be rebuilt to the same plans.

And then I would say, suppose you decide to break down the decor and use the premises as a museum of scuba gear or a home for wayward opossums. Could the architect and builder refuse to build you another mansion? Probably, but out of professional pride and not out of a state of continued ownership, right? And I imagine you wouldn’t care.