Tesla has had nineteen total vehicle recalls in 2022, affecting 3,769,572 vehicles. While there are plenty of misconceptions and false information floating around about Tesla’s recalls population, there are plenty of truths to be told.
Automotive recalls can be put into effect for some of the most insignificant reasons, but vehicles are required to be as safe as possible and must abide by the NHTSA’s rigorous standards. The goal of the agency is to protect consumers by holding manufacturers accountable, and while recalls are pushed every day, Tesla’s are undoubtedly a focus of media as the company fends off many of the mistakes with software updates.
However, some instances require owners to bring vehicles into a Service Center for repair. This happens less often to Teslas, as many issues can be fixed through a simple firmware download while an owner sleeps.
That still does not stop the narrative regarding Tesla and many other EV makers and nearly-routine OTA updates to fix vehicle issues. Recall definitions have been questioned over the past few years as companies adopt a software-first mentality, contributing to the overall narrative of poor vehicle quality in EVs.
Tesla Recall Misconception #1: The Car Company with the Most Recalls? Not Quite.
Some relatively influential figures have said Tesla recalls cars more frequently than any other company on Earth, but that is not true.
Even with its most recent recall, which fixed over 300,000 cars with faulty tail lights, Tesla is not the most recalled automaker. The NHTSA currently lists Ford Motor Company as the most recalled automotive brand in 2022 thus far.
Ford has issued 63 recalls this year, affecting over 8,000,000 vehicles. This is 21 more recalls than Volkswagen, the automaker with the second-most for the year. VW’s recalls have affected less than 1,000,000 vehicles in the United States.
-
- NHTSA data
-
- NHTSA data
Tesla Recall Misconception #2: How many Tesla recalls actually require physical service?
Of Tesla’s 19 recalls in 2022, 12 were fixed through Over-the-Air software updates, which download and are installed automatically to fix any qualifying issue. Tesla has fixed everything from windshield defrosting issues, to rolling stops for Full Self-Driving, to delays in backup cameras with software updates.
Six of Tesla’s nineteen recalls in 2022 have required physical repairs from Tesla Service. In total, 31,427 cars have been affected by these types of recalls. That is less than 1 percent of Tesla’s total recall population for the year in the United States, NHTSA data shows.
The final recall was a vehicle replacement for a single Model X owner whose unit lacked a body structure reinforcement bracket in the second row of seating.
Tesla Recall Misconception #3: Over-the-Air Updates are not recalls
While the definition of a recall has been called into question by a number of notable people, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, OTA updates do still qualify as recalls, technically.
The NHTSA gave more details to Teslarati in February about what qualifies as a vehicle recall. The agency said manufacturers must disclose an unreasonable safety risk to consumers, vehicle owners, dealers, and others when it is discovered. A recall qualifies as any unreasonable safety risk present in a vehicle, and if it is remedied in any way, even by a software update, it counts as a recall.
Recall definitions are highly controversial, with many notable Tesla community members making light of the situation.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
If you have any questions about Tesla recalls, be sure to reach out to me through email. I’ll do my best to clear up any confusion or concerns you might have.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
