So I'm going to jump on you here because this line is wrong, in this case.
> Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
Renting is economically efficient when there is a limited supply of the item, and renting allows the item to be used more often & efficiently then it would with if it were owned.
A simple example: It is much more efficient to have a single lawn-mower that you and your neighbors can rent, rather than having every lawn owner buy a mower that sits unused 99% of the time. It is cheaper to rent than buy so the folks save money on mower expense, less waste is produced because there are fewer mowers, and the item sits idle far less. The downside is the coordination required to use the rented item - it may not always be available, or available when any given person would like it to be.
NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTERS WHEN THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS HEATED SEATS!!!!
No one is able to use those "rented" heated seats when you're not using them. They will never be taken out of the car. There is literally no way to more efficiently allocate this item when rented rather than bought, unless the entire car is rented (in which case... moot point).
So this case cannot be anything other than abuse by owners. There are no efficiency savings to be had. The item won't be allocated more efficiently, it will just provide additional revenue.
Essentially - the argument that renting is more efficient UTTERLY fails when the item being rented is essentially the on/off switch to a thing built into an item you own. It's ALWAYS going to stay part of the item you own, and there is no way to re-allocate it when you are not renting it.
This is a scummy, scummy move. It should be illegal.