I think the argument against that for the rapper is that he's pushing the Cybertruck as some tough/rich/machismo thing. Being stranded roadside is quite some distance from that. Who out there is going to want to listen to his song on the back of him suffering this kinda drama?
Another argument for it being legit is that he has to know that they'd send advance warning and that it would be a combo of certified and email (to get a quicker result). I've been pursued legally and there were email/physical copies.
This is not the first time Tesla has done it, either. Before the 3 was released, a customer found some references to it in their software and made some posts.
Next thing they know, their vehicle's firmware was forcibly downgraded to a version that had no references, was forcibly version-locked at that firmware version, and had the Ethernet and OBD ports disabled.
They'll also release misleading telemetry data at press conferences to throw you under the bus. In one fatal accident, on the topic of AP/FSD, at a press conference: "Well, we do the right thing, and vehicle telemetry tells us that the car was warning the driver to pay attention before the accident".
When the NTSB report came out, it was found that there had been one attention warning issued, and it was eighteen minutes before the collision.
There is a huge difference between rolling back software while disabling some ports compared to completely bricking a vehicle as it is being driven. We can recognize they are both wrong and abuses without pretending they are equivalent actions.
Would they really put "comply with cease & desist to reactivate" on the screen?