News
Tesla’s software fixes, the NHTSA’s status quo, and an impending need for updated recall terminologies
It is no secret that Tesla is a popular topic, so much so that the coverage around the company is immense. Couple this with CEO Elon Musk’s rockstar persona and you get a company whose vehicles are looked at under a microscope constantly. It might feel unfair for some, but it’s just the way it is. Tesla — by simply being Tesla — is newsworthy.
Tesla’s newsworthiness is a double-edged sword. A look at the coverage for the company’s vehicle recalls from the NHTSA would prove this point. So notable is Tesla’s news coverage that a mainstream newsreader would likely get the impression that Teslas get recalls frequently. The opposite is true. As evidenced by Reuters in the graphic below, data from January 1, 2020, through February 17, 2022, shows that Tesla actually recalls its vehicles less frequently than some of the market’s leading automakers. Tesla is also the only carmaker performing a large share of its vehicle recalls through over-the-air software updates.
Tesla currently handles the majority of the industry’s remote software recalls, but it would soon not be the only one. New electric vehicle makers have used the idea of software updates as a means to promote their EVs’ capabilities. Rivian has performed OTA updates to its R1 vehicles, and those cars are only starting customer deliveries. Lucid is the same with its Air sedan, with the company rolling out features like Automatic Emergency Braking, Cross-Traffic Protection, Lane Departure Protection, Traffic Drive-Off Alert, and other features earlier this month through a software update. Ford has been rolling out updates called “Power-Ups” to the Mustang Mach-E as well.
Considering that software-based fixes are only bound to get more widespread over the coming years, one must then ask the question: Should software-based over-the-air fixes be dubbed and classified with the same terminologies as physical recalls, which typically involve the replacement of vehicle hardware?
A Vastly Different “Recall” Experience
Any car owner has likely experienced a recall for their vehicle at some point in their driving life. And more likely than not, one’s experience is probably not that pleasant. I certainly count myself among drivers who look at vehicle recalls with trepidation. My current vehicle, a Japanese-made van, was part of a minor fuel pump recall a couple of years ago, and even addressing that took a whole day out of my weekend. The dealer was overwhelmed with the number of cars it was fixing that day, and tempers among owners were flaring by the hour — all for a simple fuel pump replacement. I’ve been told that my experiences with vehicle recalls are not that unique.
In comparison, a software-based fix, such as the disabling of FSD Beta’s “rolling stops” feature, only required affected vehicles to be connected to the internet. There was no dealer visit, no forms to fill out, and no staff to argue with. The car was connected to the internet, a software fix was implemented, and the issue was resolved. One can argue that Tesla’s software fix to disable FSD Beta’s “rolling stops” feature was safety-related, and that’s true. But one could also argue that at least from a driver’s point of view, the experience related to software and hardware-based recalls is vastly different.
The Status Quo
Despite the different experiences involved when software and hardware-based vehicle recalls are addressed, it appears that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, at least for now, keep the status quo. Teslarati reached out to the NHTSA to inquire if it was considering the adoption of updated terminologies for cars whose fixes are completed through OTA software updates, but the agency suggested that this would likely not be the case, at least for now. According to the NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers must initiate a recall for any repair that remedies a safety risk, regardless of whether the issue is fixed by software update or by hardware replacement.
“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is committed to ensuring the highest safety standards on the nation’s roadways. NHTSA is empowered with robust tools and authorities to protect the public, to investigate potential safety issues, and to compel recalls when it finds evidence of noncompliance or an unreasonable risk to safety. Manufacturers are required to initiate a recall for any repair, including a software update, that remedies an unreasonable risk to safety. NHTSA recalls can include any required repair, which includes a software update, to remedy a potential safety risk. Manufacturers are also required to submit any communications to owners, dealers, and others about any software updates that address a defect, whether it is safety-related or not,” the NHTSA stated.
Product recall specialist and associate professor at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business Professor George Ball told Teslarati that while the NHTSA’s use of similar terminologies for software and hardware-based recalls is “definitely an example of regulators and industry moving at a different pace on technology,” the agency’s hesitation in adopting new terminologies for OTA fixes is understandable. Professor Ball further explained that using terms such as “soft recall” to refer to software-based vehicle fixes might imply a reduced level of risk, and this is something that the NHTSA would likely be unwilling to do.
“I believe NHTSA would resist ‘soft recall’ terminology because it implies a reduced level of customer hazard and allows the firm to be under less scrutiny by the press and public for quality corrections. While some updates are minor, some of the Tesla software upgrades are actually quite serious, and if not done, can allow a harmful defect to persist,” the recall specialist said.
But while the NHTSA’s stance on recall terminologies is completely understandable, one cannot deny the fact that the issues covered by vehicle recalls have a very wide range of risks. Take Tesla’s recall for 817,143 vehicles, which was announced earlier this month, for example. The recall was initiated since a software error may prevent a warning chime from activating even if drivers do not have their seat belts on. From a layman’s perspective, this recall seems grave as it affects over 800,000 Teslas on the road today. However, the issue was simply addressed through firmware release 2021.43.101.1 and later, which included a remedy for the seat belt chime error.
Compare this with General Motors’ recall last year of 400,000 pickup trucks in the US. Granted, it only affected about half as many vehicles as Tesla’s seat belt chime recall, but its hardware-based nature suggested that the risk presented by the issue was great. The recall covered certain 2015 and 2016 Chevrolet and GMC Sierra 1500, 2500, and 3500 trucks, and it involved a faulty airbag inflator that may rupture without warning. To fix the issue, owners of the affected trucks were required to head to a dealer so that they could get their airbag modules replaced. Since parts were in short supply last year, however, owners were notified with a letter to inform them when their trucks’ replacement parts were available.
What Can Be Done
While the NHTSA will likely continue to maintain the status quo with its recall terminologies for the foreseeable future, Professor Ball told Teslarati that the agency can actually implement some adjustments now that can make distinguishing safety fixes and issues clearer. This would likely be extremely important in the near future as more connected cars are rolled out and software updates become the norm.
“If I were to provide advice to the NHTSA, I would recommend that they get out ahead of this issue before every car maker starts updating cars like Tesla. One way to do it is to require the automaker to send all auto updates to NHTSA when pushed out, and to classify updates as ‘minor’ or ‘major.’ Any major update that impacts customer safety would be classified as a recall. Automakers won’t like this, but it will help keep the safety fixes transparent for all, especially consumers. By sending all updates to NHSTA, the agency could assign qualified people to audit the classifications assigned by the manufacturer, to ensure they are making good decisions there.
“I think any language that de-emphasizes the importance of a safety recall is not likely to be supported by NHTSA, and it doesn’t likely help customer safety. A clear distinction needs to be made between minor updates and major updates that influence safety. Those major updates should be classified as a recall, and NHTSA needs to get their arms around these updates and keep on top of them soon, or they will fall way behind the industry,” the recall specialist said.
Recalls can affect the perception of a company to the public. Software fixes should be one of the factors that are considered an edge for automakers like Tesla, not the other way around. Gary Black, Managing Partner of The Future Fund LLC, explained this from the point of view of a Tesla investor. “Since every NHTSA recall so far has been quickly solvable via Tesla OTA updates, ‘recalls’ are noise to most investors. Tesla’s huge software edge highlights one of the key advantages of owning Tesla over every other EV manufacturer,” the Wall Street veteran told Teslarati.
OTA updates, including those related to vehicle safety, are coming. With automakers like Ford joining the group of carmakers embracing OTA updates, software-based fixes are inevitable. Ultimately, I am inclined to agree with the recall specialist. By refusing to adapt to the advent of software-based vehicle fixes, the NHTSA may risk being left behind by the automotive industry. And that’s a scenario that I believe no automaker — or government agency for that matter — would prefer.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
FSD Supervised recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Tesla’s upcoming FSD Supervised system, set for a European debut pending regulatory approval, is showing notably refined behavior in real-world testing, including construction zones, pedestrian detection, and lane changes, as per a recent demonstration ride in Berlin.
While the system still required driver oversight, its smooth braking, steering, and decision-making illustrated how far Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has advanced ahead of a potential 2026 rollout.
FSD’s maturity in dense city driving
During the Berlin test ride with Auto Bild, Germany’s largest automotive publication, a Tesla Model 3 running FSD handled complex traffic with minimal intervention, autonomously managing braking, acceleration, steering, and overtaking up to 140 km/h. It recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Only one manual override was required when the system misread a converted one-way route, an example, Tesla stated, of the continuous learning baked into its vision-based architecture.
Robin Hornig of Auto Bild summed up his experience with FSD Supervised with a glowing review of the system. As per the reporter, FSD Supervised already exceeds humans with its all-around vision. “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention,” the journalist wrote.
Tesla FSD in Europe
FSD Supervised is still a driver-assistance system rather than autonomous driving. Still, Auto Bild noted that Tesla’s 360-degree camera suite, constant monitoring, and high computing power mark a sizable leap from earlier iterations. Already active in the U.S., China, and several other regions, the system is currently navigating Europe’s approval pipeline. Tesla has applied for an exemption in the Netherlands, aiming to launch the feature through a free software update as early as February 2026.
What Tesla demonstrated in Berlin mirrors capabilities already common in China and the U.S., where rival automakers have rolled out hands-free or city-navigation systems. Europe, however, remains behind due to a stricter certification environment, though Tesla is currently hard at work pushing for FSD Supervised’s approval in several countries in the region.
News
Tesla reliability rankings skyrocket significantly in latest assessment
“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”
Tesla ranked in the Top 10 of the most reliable car companies for 2026, as Consumer Reports’ latest index showed significant jumps from the past two years.
In 2022, Tesla ranked 27th out of 28 brands. Last year, it came in 17th.
🚨🚨 Tesla entered the Top 10 in Consumer Reports’ list of reliable carmakers for the first time
In the past two years, Tesla has ranked 17th in 2024 and 27th out of 28 brands in 2022.
Subaru, BMW, Porsche, Honda, and Toyota were the Top 5 OEMs in the rankings. pic.twitter.com/z216bccVoH
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
However, 2026’s rankings were different. CR‘s rankings officially included Tesla in the Top 10, its best performance to date.
Finishing tenth, the full Top 10 is:
- Subaru
- BMW
- Porsche
- Honda
- Toyota
- Lexus
- Lincoln
- Hyundai
- Acura
- Tesla
Tesla has had steady improvements in its build quality, and its recent refinements of the Model 3 and Model Y have not gone unnoticed.
The publication’s Senior Director of Auto Testing, Jake Fisher, said about Tesla that the company’s ability to work through the rough patches has resulted in better performance (via CNBC):
“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”
He continued to say that Tesla’s vehicles have become more reliable over time, and its decision to avoid making any significant changes to its bread-and-butter vehicles has benefited its performance in these rankings.
Legacy automakers tend to go overboard with changes, sometimes keeping a model name but recognizing a change in its “generation.” This leads to constant growing pains, as the changes in design require intense adjustments on the production side of things.
Instead, Tesla’s changes mostly come from a software standpoint, which are delivered through Over-the-Air updates, which improve the vehicle’s functionality or add new features.
Only one Tesla vehicle scored below average in Consumer Reports’ rankings for 2026 was the Cybertruck. Fisher’s belief that Tesla improves its other models over time might prove to be true with Cybertruck in a few years.
He continued:
“They’re definitely improving by keeping with things and refining, but if you look at their 5- to 10-year-old models that are out there, when it comes to reliability, they’re dead last of all the brands. They’re able to improve the reliability if they don’t make major changes.”
Regarding Subaru’s gold medal placing on the podium, Fisher said:
“While Subaru models provide good performance and comfort, they also excel in areas that may not be immediately apparent during a test drive.”
Other notable brands to improve are Rivian, which bumped itself slightly from 31 to 26. Chevrolet finished 24th, GMC ended up 29th, and Ford saw itself in 18th.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.
On Thursday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 would enable texting and driving “depending on [the] context of surrounding traffic.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD
We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.
I’d also like to add that, while Tesla had said back in early November that it hoped to allow this capability within one to two months, I still would not recommend you do it. Even if Tesla or Musk says it will allow you to do so, you should take into account the fact that many laws do not allow you to look at your phone. Be sure to refer to your local regulations surrounding texting and driving, and stay attentive to the road and its surroundings.
The Process
Based on Musk’s post on X, which said the ability to text and drive would be totally dependent on the “context of surrounding traffic,” I decided to try and find three levels of congestion: low, medium, and high.
I also tried as best as I could to always glance up at the road, a natural reaction, but I spent most of my time, during the spans of when it was in my hand, looking at my phone screen. I limited my time looking at the phone screen to a few seconds, five to seven at most. On local roads, I didn’t go over five seconds; once I got to the highway, I ensured the vehicle had no other cars directly in front of me.
Also, at any time I saw a pedestrian, I put my phone down and was fully attentive to the road. I also made sure there were no law enforcement officers around; I am still very aware of the law, which is why I would never do this myself if I were not testing it.
I also limited the testing to no more than one minute per attempt.
I am fully aware that this test might ruffle some feathers. I’m not one to text and drive, and I tried to keep this test as abbreviated as possible while still getting some insight on how often it would require me to look at the road once again.
The Results
Low Congestion Area
I picked a local road close to where I live at a time when I knew there would be very little traffic. I grabbed my phone and looked at it for no more than five seconds before I would glance up at the road to ensure everything was okay:
In full: the Low Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/6DqlBnekPn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Looking up at the road was still regular in frequency; I would glance up at the road after hitting that five-second threshold. Then I would look back down.
I had no nudges during this portion of the test. Traffic was far from even a light volume, and other vehicles around were very infrequently seen.
Medium Congestion Area
This area had significantly more traffic and included a stop at a traffic light. I still kept the consecutive time of looking at my phone to about five seconds.
I would quickly glance at the road to ensure everything was okay, then look back down at my phone, spending enough time looking at a post on Instagram, X, or Facebook to determine what it was about, before then peeking at the road again.
There was once again no alert to look at the road, and I started to question whether I was even looking at my phone long enough to get an alert:
In full: the Medium Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/gnhIfBVe6Q
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Based on past versions of Full Self-Driving, especially dating back to v13, even looking out the window for too long would get me a nudge, and it was about the same amount of time, sometimes more, sometimes less, I would look out of a window to look at a house or a view.
High Congestion Area
I decided to use the highway as a High Congestion Area, and it finally gave me an alert to look at the road.
As strange as it is, I felt more comfortable looking down at my phone for a longer amount of time on the highway, especially considering there is a lower chance of a sudden stop or a dangerous maneuver by another car, especially as I was traveling just 5 MPH over in the left lane.
This is where I finally got an alert from the driver monitoring system, and I immediately put my phone down and returned to looking at the road:
In full: the High Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/K9rIn4ROvm
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Once I was able to trigger an alert, I considered the testing over with. I think in the future I’d like to try this again with someone else in the car to keep their eyes on the road, but I’m more than aware that we can’t always have company while driving.
My True Thoughts
Although this is apparently enabled based on what was said, I still do not feel totally comfortable with it. I would not ever consider shooting a text or responding to messages because Full Self-Driving is enabled, and there are two reasons for that.
The first is the fact that if an accident were to happen, it would be my fault. Although it would be my fault, people would take it as Tesla’s fault, just based on what media headlines usually are with accidents involving these cars.
Secondly, I am still well aware that it’s against the law to use your phone while driving. In Pennsylvania, we have the Paul Miller Law, which prohibits people from even holding their phones, even at stop lights.
I’d feel much more comfortable using my phone if liability were taken off of me in case of an accident. I trust FSD, but I am still erring on the side of caution, especially considering Tesla’s website still indicates vehicle operators have to remain attentive while using either FSD or Autopilot.
Check out our full test below:
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
Tesla reliability rankings skyrocket significantly in latest assessment
