Tesla has already deployed a software update for a recall affecting a small number of its Model X SUVs, after owners filed complaints about the headlights flickering at certain temperatures.
Earlier this month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched a recall of 25 Tesla Model X units, after drivers complained that the headlights would flicker and not fully illuminate the road at certain temperatures. The affected Model X vehicles were manufactured between June 5 and August 2 of this year, and the problem is due to a specific combination of hardware and software.
Tesla has also identified the component to be the lower headlamp assemblies on the left and right headlights, as manufactured in Mexico. After identifying the issue, Tesla performed a root-cause analysis in partnership with the supplier, including an assessment to ensure design specifications were properly met. Tesla went on to determine that the issue had been from a combination of both software and hardware, and it was able to determine the 25 affected vehicles in October following the analysis.
While the problem has already been addressed with an over-the-air (OTA) software update, NHTSA plans to send official notification letters to affected owners by January 31, 2025.
You can see the full recall report for the issue below, and the NHTSA recall number is 24V-904.
Tesla, recall language and OTA software updates
Many in the Tesla and electric vehicle (EV) community have criticized the use of the term “recall” when no physical parts need to be repaired and no accidents or injuries are associated with a given recall. While some issues may require the owner to bring a vehicle in for physical service, most of Tesla’s recalls have simply required a free OTA software update that installs overnight to fix associated issues.
Elon Musk himself has criticized the use of the term in the past as being antiquated, especially as the media has widely reported on several recalls that were immediately fixed, free of charge, through the deployment of an update—often months before the NHTSA can send notification letters to owners.
Earlier this year, Musk said the term recall was “anachronistic,” adding that by this language phones were being “recalled” every few weeks.
Yeah. This “recall” literally just changes a few pixels on the screen with an over-the-air update.
By that anachronistic standard, phones are being “recalled” every few weeks.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 2, 2024
In an email to Teslarati earlier this year, an NHTSA spokesperson highlighted that the language surrounding recalls and software updates was required by federal law when road safety risks are posed, along with the requirement that letters be mailed to owners upon a recall’s launch. You can see the agency’s full statement regarding this language below.
Defects that pose an unreasonable risk to safety are serious and should be remedied as soon as possible. Federal law requires manufacturers to issue recalls to remedy safety defects and noncompliances and issue notices to vehicle owners via first class mail. Whether a remedy can be completed at a local dealership or through an over-the-air software update makes no difference to the safety risk posed by a defect or noncompliance.
On background, a recall notification is an important acknowledgment of a safety defect or noncompliance with a safety regulation, regardless of the manner of the repair. The consumer needs to know of over-the-air remedies in case of an issue downloading the repair or if the safety defect or noncompliance persists due to an inadequate remedy.
Unlike a software update to a computer or phone, a safety defect in a vehicle can put the lives of vehicle occupants and others on the road at risk.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Tesla initiates rare physical recall for 2016 Model X over appliqué issue


News
Tesla robotaxi test details shared in recent report: 300 operators, safety tests, and more
Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.

During the Q1 2025 earnings call, Tesla executives reiterated the idea that the company will be launching a dedicated robotaxi service using its Full Self Driving (FSD) Unsupervised system this coming June.
A recent report from Insider, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, has now provided a number of details about the preparations that Tesla has been making as it approaches its June target date.
Remote Operators
As noted by the publication, about 300 test operators have been driving through Austin city streets over the past few months using Teslas equipped with self-driving software. These efforts are reportedly part of “Project Rodeo.” Citing test drivers who are reportedly part of the program, Insider noted that Tesla’s tests involve accumulating critical miles. Test drivers are reportedly assigned to specific test routes, which include “critical” tracks where drivers are encouraged to avoid manual interventions, and “adversarial” tracks, which simulate tricky scenarios.
Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, though the vehicles only operate in limited areas. The vehicles also use safety drivers for now. However, Tesla has reportedly had discussions about using remote operators as safety drivers when the service goes live for consumers. Some test drivers have been moved into remote operator roles for this purpose, the publication’s sources claimed.
While Tesla is focusing on Austin and San Francisco for now, the company is reportedly also deploying test drivers in other key cities. These include Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and Phoenix, AZ.
Safety Tests
Tesla reportedly held training events with local first responders as part of its preparations for its robotaxi service, Insider claimed, citing documents that it had obtained. As per the publication, Tesla had met with the city’s autonomous vehicle task force, which include members of the Austin Fire Department, back in December.
Back in March, Tesla reportedly participated in about six hours of testing with local first responders, which included members of the fire department and the police, at a close test track. Around 60 drivers and vehicles were reportedly used in the test to simulate real-world traffic scenarios.
Interestingly enough, a spokesperson from the Austin Police Department stated that Tesla did hold a testing day with emergency responders from Austin, Williamson County, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Reported Deadlines
While Tesla has been pretty open about its robotaxi service launching in Austin this June, the company is reportedly pursuing an aggressive June 1 deadline, at least internally. During meetings with Elon Musk, VP of AI software Ashok Elluswamy’s team reportedly informed the CEO that the company is on track to hit its internal deadline.
One of Insider’s sources, however, noted that the June 1 deadline is more aspirational or motivational. “A June 1 deadline makes a June 30 launch more likely,” the publication’s source noted.
News
Atty who refused to charge six-time Tesla vandal sparks controversy
Despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who made the decision not to charge 33-year-old vandal Dylan Bryan Adams after he keyed six Teslas around Minneapolis last month, has found herself in the middle of controversy.
The controversy came amidst her decision to press charges against a 19-year-old first-time vandal who keyed one vehicle at the White Castle in Brooklyn Park.
The Tesla Vandal
Moriarty’s decision not to charge Adams after he keyed six Teslas was met with widespread criticism. Adams’ actions resulted in more than $20,000 worth of damages, more than $10,000 of which was to a single vehicle, as noted in a New York Post report. Yet despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.
The fact that Adams is a state employee who works for the Department of Human Services as a program consultant triggered allegations that his dismissal might be partly influenced by Gov. Tim Walz. Walz is a staunch critic of Musk, previously stating that the falling price of TSLA stock gives him a “boost” in the morning.
As noted in a report from The Minnesota Star Tribune, Moriarty’s decision was so controversial that she was asked about the matter on Wednesday. In response, the attorney argued that her office made the decision outside of any political consideration. “We try to make decisions without really looking at the political consequences. Can we always predict how a story will be portrayed in the media or what people will say? No,” Moriarty stated.
Actually Charged
As noted by the Tribune, Moriarty has made arguments around the fact that Adams was a first-time offender, even if he opted to deface six separate Teslas. But even this argument has become controversial since Moriarty recently charged a 19-year-old Robbinsdale woman with no criminal record with first-degree felony property damage after she allegedly keyed a co-worker’s car. The damage incurred by the 19-year-old woman was $7,000, substantially less than the over $20,000 damage that Adams’ actions have caused.
Cases surrounding felony first-degree property damage are fairly common, though they require the damage to be over $1,000. The 19-year-old’s damage to her co-worker’s car met this threshold. Adams’ damage to the six Teslas he vandalized also met this requirement.
When Moriarty was asked about her seemingly conflicting decisions, she noted that her office’s primary goal was to hold the person accountable for keying the vehicle and get restitution to the people affected. She also noted that her office tries to avoid convictions when possible since they could affect a person’s life. “Should we have treated this gentleman differently because it’s a political issue? We made this decision because it is in the best interest of public safety,” she noted.
News
Tesla faces emission credits tax in Washington state
House Bill 2077 taxes emissions credits, mainly hitting Tesla. Lawmakers expect $100M/year from the taxes.

Washington state lawmakers are advancing a bill that would tax Tesla’s emission credits, targeting profits under the state’s clean vehicle policy. Lawmakers who support the bill clarify that the Tesla credit tax is unrelated to Elon Musk.
HB 2077, introduced in mid-April, seeks to impose a 2% tax on emission credit sales and a 10% tax on banked credits. The bill primarily affects Tesla due to exemptions for companies with fewer credits.
In 2022, Washington’s Department of Ecology mandated that all new cars sold by 2035 be electric, hydrogen-fueled, or hybrids, with 35% compliance required by next year. Carmakers selling more gas-powered vehicles can buy credits from companies like Tesla, which sells only electric vehicles.
A legislative fiscal analysis projects taxes on those credits would generate $78 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $100 million annually thereafter. About 70% of the taxes will be allocated to the state’s general funds, and the rest will help expand electric car infrastructure.
HB 2077 passed the state House eight days after its introduction and awaits a Senate Ways and Means Committee vote on Friday. At a House Finance Committee hearing, supporters, including union and social service advocates, argued the tax would prevent cuts to state services.
House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon emphasized its necessity amid frozen federal EV infrastructure funds. “We didn’t have a budget crisis until this year. And we didn’t have the federal government revoking huge amounts of federal dollars for EV infrastructure,” he said.
Tesla’s lobbyist, Jeff Gombosky, countered that the proposal “runs counter to the intent” of the state’s zero-emission policy. Rivian’s lobbyist, Troy Nichols, noted a “modest” impact on his company but warned it could undermine the EV mandate. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns, stating, “We worry it sets a dubious precedent.”
Fitzgibbon defended the tax, noting Tesla’s dominant credit stockpile makes it “one outlier” that is “very profitable.” “That’s the kind of thing legislators take an interest in,” he said. “Is it serving the interest of the public for this asset to be untaxed?”
With the legislative session nearing its end, the bill remains a key focus in budget talks in Washington.
-
News4 days ago
Tesla’s Hollywood Diner is finally getting close to opening
-
Elon Musk1 week ago
Tesla doubles down on Robotaxi launch date, putting a big bet on its timeline
-
News1 week ago
Tesla’s top investor questions ahead of the Q1 2025 earnings call
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla launches cheapest and longest range Cybertruck trim yet
-
News2 weeks ago
Underrated Tesla safety feature recognized by China Automotive Research Institute
-
News2 weeks ago
These were the best-selling EV brands in the U.S. in Q1
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla China discontinues Model S and Model X orders amid tariff war
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Giga Berlin sets record for free EV charging park