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 hits FSD hackers with surprise move
In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.
Tesla is cracking down on hackers who have figured out a way to utilize third-party programs to activate Full Self-Driving (FSD) in their vehicles — despite the suite not being approved for use in their country.
Tesla has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign against owners using third-party hardware hacks to activate FSD software in countries where the advanced driver-assistance system remains unregulated or unapproved.
In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.
Tesla has started remotely disabling Full Self-Driving on cars fitted with third-party CAN bus hacks in countries where the software is not yet approved.
This crackdown began after the hacks started spreading widely last month. 👇 pic.twitter.com/wL8VqZuTlK
— PiunikaWeb – helpful, and breaking tech news (@PiunikaWeb) April 9, 2026
Reports of the crackdown have surfaced across Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, marking a significant escalation in Tesla’s efforts to enforce regional software restrictions.
FSD is Tesla’s flagship supervised autonomy package, which is available in several countries across the world. Currently limited by regulatory hurdles, it has not received full approval in most markets outside of the United States due to various things, such as safety standards, data privacy, and local traffic laws.
However, the company is working to expand its availability globally. Nevertheless, Tesla has installed the necessary hardware on vehicles globally, but locks the features based on geographic location.
Some owners have taken accessing FSD into their own hands, using jailbreak or bypass devices.
These “jailbreak” tools, typically €500 USB-style modules that plug into the vehicle’s Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, intercept signals to spoof approvals and unlock FSD, including advanced navigation, Autopark, and Summon features.
Hackers in Poland, Ukraine, and elsewhere have distributed the devices, with some claiming they work on HW3 and HW4 vehicles and can be unplugged to restore stock settings. In China alone, over 100,000 owners reportedly installed such modifications.
Tesla’s response has been swift and uncompromising. Recently, the company began sending in-car notifications and emails warning owners that unauthorized modifications violate terms of service, compromise vehicle safety systems, and expose cars to cybersecurity risks.
The email communication read:
“Your vehicle has detected an unauthorized third-party device. As a precaution, some driver assistance functions have been disabled for safety reasons. A software update will be available soon. Once you install the update, some features may be enabled again.”
Vehicles detected using the hacks have had FSD capabilities remotely disabled without refund. In some cases, owners report permanent bans, even if they had legitimately purchased the software package.
Tesla’s hardline stance underscores its commitment to regulatory compliance and safety.
Tesla has long argued that unsupervised FSD requires rigorous validation, and premature activation could endanger drivers and bystanders.
The crackdown sends a clear-cut message to those who are bypassing the FSD safeguards, but there are greater implications for Tesla if something were to go wrong. This is an understandable way to protect the company’s reputation for its FSD suite.
News
Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims
This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.
Tesla is developing a small, affordable SUV, a new report claims, speculating that the automaker is planning to add yet another vehicle to its lineup at a price point similar to the Model 3 and Model Y, but smaller and more compact.
But it does not make a whole lot of sense, especially considering a handful of things CEO Elon Musk said and the overall plan for Tesla’s future.
Reuters reported that Tesla is in the early stages of developing an all-new, smaller, cheaper electric SUV. Citing four sources familiar with the matter, the story claims the vehicle would be shorter than the Model Y, built in China, and represent a fresh platform rather than a variant of the Model 3 or Y.
Suppliers have reportedly been contacted to discuss details, though Tesla has not commented. The move appears aimed at broadening affordability amid slowing EV demand and intensifying competition, particularly from Chinese rivals.
This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.
In 2024, the company scrapped its long-teased “Redwood” project for a budget-friendly car. Elon Musk explained the decision bluntly during an earnings call: a conventional low-cost model would be “pointless” and “completely at odds with what we believe.”
It’s sort of hard to believe this report: 3/Y are already relatively affordable, Elon said a $25k wouldn’t make sense, consumers want something larger than the Y with X going away, and Musk said what’s coming is “cooler than a minivan.”
Have to think the car is at least an SUV. https://t.co/4CQUV9ZNA5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 9, 2026
In other words, chasing a bare-bones cheap EV runs counter to Tesla’s core mission of accelerating sustainable energy through cutting-edge technology and autonomy rather than volume-driven price wars.
Musk’s own recent statements reinforce skepticism about a compact SUV pivot. Just two weeks ago, on March 25, he responded to fan requests for a minivan by posting on X: “Something way cooler than a minivan is coming.”
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
The remark came in the context of family-hauling needs, with Musk highlighting the Cybertruck’s ability to seat multiple child seats. It signals Tesla’s focus is shifting toward more spacious, innovative people-movers—not shrinking its lineup.
U.S. demand data echoes this logic.
The long-wheelbase Model Y L—a six-seat, stretched variant offering extra room for families—has generated massive interest wherever offered. Fans in the U.S. have basically begged for the Model Y L to make its way to the States, or for the company to develop a full-size SUV.
The Model Y L is selling well in China, where it is manufactured.
Delivery wait times for the Model Y L stretched into February 2026 as orders poured in. Tesla recently expanded the trim to eight new Asian markets, yet it remains unavailable in the United States, where consumer appetite for a larger, more practical SUV is reportedly strong.
American buyers have consistently favored bigger vehicles; the Model Y already outsells most competitors precisely because it delivers crossover utility without compromise. A compact model shorter than today’s bestseller would likely miss this mark entirely.
Tesla’s product strategy has long emphasized differentiation through autonomy, range, and desirability rather than racing to the bottom on price. Stripped-down variants of the Model 3 and Y have already struggled to ignite broad demand.
A new compact SUV built in China might sound logical on paper for cost-sensitive buyers, but it risks repeating past missteps—diluting brand cachet while ignoring clear signals from Musk and the market.
History suggests Tesla talks about affordable cars more often than it delivers them. Whether this Reuters scoop evolves into metal or joins the $25k project on the scrap heap remains to be seen.
For now, the smart money is on Tesla doubling down on “way cooler” vehicles that actually fit American families—and Tesla’s ambitious vision—rather than a smaller SUV that feels like yesterday’s news.
News
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says next FSD release is the one we’ve been waiting for
On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the capabilities of a future Full Self-Driving release, but it seems like we are getting what Yogi Berra once called “Déjà vu all over again.”
On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.
He confirmed that upcoming point releases of v14.3 will deliver additional polish to the current build, smoothing out remaining edges in an already capable system. These iterative updates, Musk noted, are designed to refine performance without requiring a full version overhaul.
Yet the real headline was Musk’s forecast for v15.
“V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations,” he wrote.
Tesla V14.3 self-driving review. The point releases will bring polish.
V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations. https://t.co/s4UK9RWw9f— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 9, 2026
He clarified that v15 will be powered by Tesla’s long-awaited large model, an AI architecture with roughly 10x the parameters of the smaller model currently in widespread use. The leap, Musk explained, stems from the unusually rapid progress of the compact model, which has advanced so quickly that the larger counterpart has yet to catch up in real-world deployment.
However, it is becoming a pattern that is, by now, familiar to anyone following Tesla’s autonomous driving roadmap.
There’s no debating you on that 🤷
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 9, 2026
Musk has consistently and repeatedly framed each successive major release as the one poised to deliver game-changing autonomy. Earlier versions were similarly positioned as a movement toward the final piece of the puzzle, only for attention to pivot to the next milestone once they arrived.
The refrain has become a recurring feature of FSD communication: current software is impressive, the point releases will sharpen it further, but the true breakthrough lies one major iteration ahead.
Musk’s latest comments fit squarely into that cadence. While v14.3 point releases are expected to tighten supervised driving behaviors in the coming weeks, v15 is cast as the version that finally crosses the threshold into unsupervised operation at human-or-better safety levels across demanding scenarios.
Our rate of advancement with the small model has been so fast that the large model has not yet caught up.
V15 will be the large model.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 9, 2026
The 10x parameter scale of the underlying large model is presented as the key technical enabler, promising richer reasoning and more robust decision-making than anything deployed to date.
Whether v15 ultimately fulfills that promise remains to be seen. Tesla’s history shows that each new target generates fresh excitement—and occasional skepticism—about timelines.
Fans realize Musk’s timelines for FSD are exciting, but rarely met:
You can see a rift happening in the Tesla bull community between a large group of reasonable people who aren’t afraid to acknowledge the elephants in the room, and those who are essentially bull bots whose entire identities are destroyed if they have to acknowledge any bump in…
— Mike P (@mikepat711) April 9, 2026
For now, Musk’s message is familiar: the immediate focus is polishing v14.3 through targeted point releases, while the 10x-parameter large model in v15 represents the next decisive step toward fully unsupervised, superhuman safety.
Hopefully, Tesla can come through, but we can only believe that once v15 gets here, v16 will be the next big step toward autonomy.
Drivers can expect continued refinement in the short term and a significantly more ambitious leap once the large model is ready. The cycle continues, but the stakes, Musk insists, keep rising.
Tesla hits FSD hackers with surprise move
Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims
