Connect with us

News

Tesla’s software fixes, the NHTSA’s status quo, and an impending need for updated recall terminologies

Credit: Tesla Motors/Instagram

Published

on

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. 

Credit: Reuters Graphics

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla engineer explains why Elon Musk deserves new pay package

“When Elon is motivated, it also motivates us, especially in this fork of humanity. I would not be staying in Tesla this long unless he is still leading.”

Published

on

Elon Musk giving YouTube tech reviewer Marques Brownlee a tour of the Fremont factory. (Credit: MKBHD/YouTube)

A Tesla engineer took to X to explain why he believes Elon Musk deserved the new 96 million share, $29 billion pay package that the company awarded to him yesterday.

Yun-Ta Tsai, a Senior Staff Engineer in the Autopilot program at Tesla, has worked at the company for five years. He has been in his current position for two years and three months.

Tesla rewards CEO Elon Musk with massive, restricted stock package

Tsai posted a lengthy statement in response to Tesla announcing its new pay package for Musk, which the company’s Board of Directors announced yesterday. He was fully in support of his boss getting paid, especially considering Musk “came to work every day” without being paid for eight years.

Tsai said:

“8 years without pay, but Elon still came to work everyday despite hitting all the milestones.

Most founders, even being paid much better, would simply abandon ships or being “zucked”.

I often joked my annual comp was higher than Elon but it was true.

When Elon is motivated, it also motivates us, especially in this fork of humanity. I would not be staying in Tesla this long unless he is still leading.

Hopefully Elon gets his first paycheck soon after 8 years of grinding in hell. It is time.”
It’s no secret that Musk has the reputation of someone who is incredibly driven, motivated, and determined to come through on his personal and professional goals. In times of need at the company, Musk sleeps at the office and works seven days a week.

Recently, it came to the surface that he nearly missed his brother’s wedding years ago because of work.

Musk’s attitude toward work is what has made Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and other entities so successful.

Musk’s new pay package

Tesla announced the new pay package for Musk yesterday, under the following terms:

  • 96 million restricted shares of stock, subject to Elon paying a purchase price upon meeting a two-year vesting term, to be delivered after receipt of antitrust regulatory approval
  • The purchase price will be equal to the split-adjusted exercise price of the stock options awarded to Elon under the 2018 CEO Performance Award ($23.34 per share)
  • A requirement that Elon serve continuously in a senior leadership role at Tesla during the two-year vesting term
  • A pledging allowance to cover tax payments or the purchase price
  • A mandatory holding period of five years from the grant date, except to cover tax payments or the purchase price (with any sales for such purposes to be conducted through an orderly disposition in coordination with Tesla); and
  • If the Delaware courts fully reinstate the 2018 CEO Performance Award, this interim award will be forfeited or returned or a portion of the 2018 CEO Performance Award will be forfeited. To put it simply, there cannot be any “double dip.” Elon will not be able to keep this new award in addition to the options he will be awarded under the 2018 CEO Performance Award, should the courts rule in our favor

The board added a statement that said it believed now would be an ideal time “to take decisive action to recognize the extraordinary value that Elon created for Tesla shareholders.”

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybertruck leftovers are the main course at the Supercharger Diner

Tesla is using recycled steel from Cybertruck manufacturing for the Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Cybertruck panels that are leftover from manufacturing became the main course at the Supercharger Diner, contributing to the futuristic restaurant’s unique exterior design.

The Supercharger Diner was an idea of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s in 2018, and in July 2025, it officially opened for business, serving a variety of interesting dishes in a futuristic setting that pays homage to the 1950s restaurant experience.

The design of the Diner is what truly sets it apart: it is reminiscent of the stainless exterior that Tesla used for the Cybertruck. It turns out that’s exactly what it is.

tesla diner supercharger in los angeles california at night

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen revealed in an interview with Tesla Owners Club Austria that the company used recycled panels from Cybertruck manufacturing as siding on the epic diner.

Here’s what he said:

Tesla sourced its stainless steel for the exoskeleton of the Cybertruck from Steel Dynamics Inc. and its plant in Sinton, Texas. The company confirmed this through various outlets, including exhibit descriptions at the Petersen Automotive Museum. The steel is refined through a third party before it is used.

Credit: Cybertruck Owners Club

It also uses the same steel for SpaceX Starship.

It’s pretty interesting that Tesla chose to use the stainless steel for the exterior of the diner in Los Angeles, but it also makes sense considering how durable it has proven to be.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla ‘activist shareholders’ sue company and Elon Musk for Robotaxi rollout

Tesla’s activist shareholders are coming after the company, claiming it misled investors about the Robotaxi rollout.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | X

Tesla’s “activist shareholders” seem to be one of the biggest threats to the company and its CEO, Elon Musk, who has spoken extensively about them in recent times. They’re up to their latest bit of work against the company, suing both Tesla and Musk, accusing them of securities fraud by alleging they concealed “significant risk” over the Robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas.

On Monday night, a group of shareholders sued Tesla and Musk in a proposed class action lawsuit in Texas federal court. They claim Tesla misled investors about the safety of the vehicles used in the Robotaxi rollout in Austin, which started on June 22.

The suit indicates that videos show the vehicles “speeding, exhibiting sudden braking, driving over a curb, entering the wrong lane, and dropping passengers off in the middle of multilane roads.” Reuters first reported on the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for shareholders between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025.

Tesla’s Robotaxi platform has been operating for less than two months, and the company has already expanded its geofence in Austin twice.

In the roughly six weeks that Robotaxi has been operational, Tesla has only had one incident reported to the Austin Government, and it was a “Safety Concern” in June 2025. Since July 2023, which is when autonomous vehicle operation began in Austin, 130 incidents have been reported. AV Ride, Cruise, Waymo, and Zoox also operate in Austin.

Waymo has the most incidents with 73. Its first was in June 2024 when a unit blocked traffic.

Activist Shareholders

Musk has warned that activist shareholders are potentially dangerous to both Tesla and his position as CEO. He recently spoke about them during the Q2 Earnings Call regarding his stake in the company:

“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”

Tesla’s Board yesterday made an attempt to help secure Musk’s stake by offering him a massive 96 million share pay package of restricted stock. It will only help his stake in the company bump up slightly to 14.6 percent from 12.9 percent.

Continue Reading

Trending