NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Back Over Prevention complaints
14 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Aug 2, 2026
Back Over PreventionUnknown Or OtherCrash
Driver selected auto-park in parking area and car tried to self-park in a chosen spot adjacent to a pole and made several attempts to park and in the process hit a pole adjacent to the chosen parking spot. Immediately the incident was reported via Tesla app and photos were uploaded and an appointment was given for 8/6/2026 at 2:…
Read full complaint
Driver selected auto-park in parking area and car tried to self-park in a chosen spot adjacent to a pole and made several attempts to park and in the process hit a pole adjacent to the chosen parking spot. Immediately the incident was reported via Tesla app and photos were uploaded and an appointment was given for 8/6/2026 at 2:15pm at Tesla service Aliso Viejo. In reference to the pictures, car tried to park in spot 89 entering from spot 90, and made several attempts and driver expected the auto-park to be aborted giving up control to teh driver, but the car hit the pole and then driver took control to park.
NHTSA ODI #11754240
Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2026
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceCrash
Car was in FSD mode, backing out of a parking place very slowly when it accelerated and crashed into a post and wall. No other cars or people were involved, but no alarms, beeps, or warnings were sounded and the screen/monitor/camera systems went blank simultaneously. This caused over $5000 worth of damage per the estimate provi…
Read full complaint
Car was in FSD mode, backing out of a parking place very slowly when it accelerated and crashed into a post and wall. No other cars or people were involved, but no alarms, beeps, or warnings were sounded and the screen/monitor/camera systems went blank simultaneously. This caused over $5000 worth of damage per the estimate provided by the only body shop in the area allowed to fix Teslas. There is also a gap in saved data per our retrieval from the USB and camera installed in the vehicle.
NHTSA ODI #11729393
Mileage unknown · Feb 12, 2026
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
On February 11, 2026, the 2025 Tesla Model Y "Vision AutoPark" system initiated an uncommanded high-speed reverse acceleration into a stationary yellow concrete bollard in a parking lot. The vehicle's vision-only parking assist hardware failed to detect a clearly visible, fixed obstruction and displayed a clear path on the syste…
Read full complaint
On February 11, 2026, the 2025 Tesla Model Y "Vision AutoPark" system initiated an uncommanded high-speed reverse acceleration into a stationary yellow concrete bollard in a parking lot. The vehicle's vision-only parking assist hardware failed to detect a clearly visible, fixed obstruction and displayed a clear path on the system interface immediately before impact. No warning lamps, chimes, messages, or other alerts preceded the failure. The system provided zero indication of the imminent collision. The vehicle closed the distance to the bollard in under one second, exceeding human reaction time and making manual braking intervention impossible before impact. This failure mode — autonomous acceleration toward a stationary object without detection or warning — creates a severe crush hazard for pedestrians and property. The vehicle and its onboard data logs are available for inspection upon request. High-definition video evidence of the failure has been preserved showing the system ignoring the visible obstacle. The problem has not been confirmed by a dealer. The manufacturer's service center refused to inspect the vehicle or review data logs on the date of the incident despite an immediate in-person request. The vehicle has not yet been inspected by insurance, police, or the manufacturer. The failed component is the Tesla Vision-only AutoPark system, including its camera-based object detection and autonomous vehicle control software.
NHTSA ODI #11717443
Mileage unknown · Jan 21, 2026
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceStructure
On or about May 23 or 24, 2025, while using FSD to park the vehicle, I engaged reverse mode. The vehicle was fully under FSD control during this maneuver. Unexpectedly, the car reversed into a fixed pole, impacting the rear of the vehicle and causing a noticeable dent. The system did detect the collision and stopped upon impact,…
Read full complaint
On or about May 23 or 24, 2025, while using FSD to park the vehicle, I engaged reverse mode. The vehicle was fully under FSD control during this maneuver. Unexpectedly, the car reversed into a fixed pole, impacting the rear of the vehicle and causing a noticeable dent. The system did detect the collision and stopped upon impact, but failed to avoid it entirely. This incident occurred despite my hands being on the wheel and full attention as a supervising driver, in accordance with Tesla's guidelines for FSD use. I believe this represents a malfunction in the FSD system's object detection or path planning during reverse parking.
NHTSA ODI #11712416
Mileage unknown · Jun 23, 2025
Back Over PreventionLane DepartureCrash
Shortly after purchasing the vehicle in late 2024, I began experiencing multiple safety-related malfunctions. These issues include: Full Self-Driving (FSD) malfunction: On the third use of FSD, the vehicle attempted to enter a left-turn lane but failed to fully move into the lane, resulting in the right front panel of the vehic…
Read full complaint
Shortly after purchasing the vehicle in late 2024, I began experiencing multiple safety-related malfunctions. These issues include: Full Self-Driving (FSD) malfunction: On the third use of FSD, the vehicle attempted to enter a left-turn lane but failed to fully move into the lane, resulting in the right front panel of the vehicle colliding with the bumper of a truck in the adjacent lane. There were no warnings from the system prior to the collision. The incident occurred at low speed. The truck sustained no visible damage, and the rubber from the truck's bumper transferred to the car, which was removed by hand later. This event raised serious concerns about the safety and reliability of the FSD system. No police report was filed, and the manufacturer was not present at the scene. Backup alert system failure: On several occasions while reversing, the car failed to issue audible or visual alerts despite vehicles being within 10–15 feet. In one instance, the screen finally showed a red zone when a car was within 10 feet, but still provided no audible warning. This issue has been intermittently reproducible but not consistent. It poses a significant risk to pedestrians and other drivers, particularly in low-visibility or driveway situations. Manufacturer's Response: The vehicle was inspected by Tesla. After one in-person service visit and extended discussions, Tesla service representatives stated there was “nothing more they could do” and that a buyback was the only next step. A buyback request was submitted by a Tesla representative but has not been acknowledged or resolved more than 45 days later.
NHTSA ODI #11668644
Mileage unknown · Mar 26, 2025
Back Over PreventionLane DepartureCrash
on 2/15/2025, while backing out of a driveway at about 7:30PM, the vehicle backed into a parked car directly behind it parked in street. There was no warning signal emitted that an object was behind the car. There was no safety alert on the display. Essentially the vehicle's sensors did not see the vehicle directly behind it.…
Read full complaint
on 2/15/2025, while backing out of a driveway at about 7:30PM, the vehicle backed into a parked car directly behind it parked in street. There was no warning signal emitted that an object was behind the car. There was no safety alert on the display. Essentially the vehicle's sensors did not see the vehicle directly behind it.
NHTSA ODI #11650751
Mileage unknown · Mar 5, 2025
Back Over PreventionElectrical System
I bought a tesla model Y 2025 and got my car delivered on [XXX] I barely drove it and within a week, I noticed all sensors stopped working (ALL cameras and camera-related functions stopped working, including the legally mandatory backup camera for new cars, GPS has stopped working, making the premium connectivity package I paid …
Read full complaint
I bought a tesla model Y 2025 and got my car delivered on [XXX] I barely drove it and within a week, I noticed all sensors stopped working (ALL cameras and camera-related functions stopped working, including the legally mandatory backup camera for new cars, GPS has stopped working, making the premium connectivity package I paid not usable). Not only was I not able to use the self driving capability, which I paid $8000 for, but also the car lacked the most basic safety features. I contacted Tesla service center, they refused to admit that the sensor malfunction is a security concern, and still put me on an appointment three weeks later (dec 13). After the first appointment, they did not fix the problem at all and noted it was a major computer issue, as reported by several media outlets [XXX] ). So my brand new car has a defective core component upon delivery. I was scheduled to meet them after they get the computer part on Dec 27. The appointment was rescheduled to Jan 14 again for missing parts. During the process, I found some weird tricks online and semi-fixed my car’s navigation but the sensor issues still exist. And on Jan 14 again, they claimed the computer part was missing again and I had to wait until that upcoming weekend to fix it. To summarize the situation: I was given a car that is defective upon delivery on its most important core component for 2.5 months, when the car lacks even the basic legally required safety features, as well as premium features that I already paid off! During the process, I also spent a lot of time dealing with their customer service, and rescheduled appointments (I even had to drive to their service center several times to get a loaner and had to return the loaner early before they did not have parts to fix my car). Their negligence on safety, and promised features is simply astonishing and unacceptable. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11646403
Mileage unknown · Jan 6, 2025
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed Control
2025 Tesla model Y cameras and sensors all stopped working within 700 miles driven from brand new. Affected systems included all cameras, including backup camera, as well as GPS navigation, with the GPS system believing the vehicle to be static at a Tesla facility in California. This not only prevented the self-driving and navig…
Read full complaint
2025 Tesla model Y cameras and sensors all stopped working within 700 miles driven from brand new. Affected systems included all cameras, including backup camera, as well as GPS navigation, with the GPS system believing the vehicle to be static at a Tesla facility in California. This not only prevented the self-driving and navigation from functioning, it caused numerous safety features to be disabled including (mandatory) backup cameras, collision-avoidance system, lane-departure warning system, cross-traffic alert system, rear collision avoidance system, and automatic safety braking. Upon reporting to Tesla, was told a "new component" was required, which later was told was a new computer. The manufacturer initially set a date 2 weeks in the future for a repair; then they pushed it a month; then tried to push it another month before I pushed back. This resulted in it being taken in earlier than the repair date. The vehicle is still awaiting repair. There were no warnings of this failure, it simply all happened at once. Upon confronting Tesla service with this being a known issue [XXX] ) and requesting a loaner for the meantime, they eventually found one, but only after great protestation and pushback, with eventual threats of legal action leading to a more personal touch. This is clearly a known issue which they are downplaying. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11634420
Mileage unknown · Dec 25, 2024
Back Over PreventionForward Collision Avoidance
I took delivery of the Tesla Model Y yesterday (12/24/2024). The car has 73 miles on it as of now. First, the rear view camera stops working this morning (12/25/2024) and parking assistant is not available. Then the autopilot won't turn on and the car shows an alert that "power limited". After I arrived home from a supercharger …
Read full complaint
I took delivery of the Tesla Model Y yesterday (12/24/2024). The car has 73 miles on it as of now. First, the rear view camera stops working this morning (12/25/2024) and parking assistant is not available. Then the autopilot won't turn on and the car shows an alert that "power limited". After I arrived home from a supercharger (the car is charged to 80% as of now) around 1pm, the screen turns brick, and it will not turn on again after rebooting. It can drive, but the power feels weak. I called Tesla roadside service. The car has been towed to the Fresno service center.
NHTSA ODI #11632359
Mileage unknown · Dec 24, 2024
Back Over PreventionElectrical SystemForward Collision Avoidance
Automatic Emergency braking stopped working. Parking assist stopped working. Back window is dismal. You can't see anything behind through the window. All cameras stopped working and it poses a safety hazard.
NHTSA ODI #11632249
NHTSA investigations
4EA26002 · Fsd Collisions In Reduced Roadway Visibility Conditions
Opened Mar 18, 2026 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
PE25012 · Traffic Safety Violations While Full Self Driving ("fsd") Is Engaged
Opened Oct 7, 2025 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. NHTSA understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. NHTSA's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, NHTSA’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at NHTSA.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting. 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.
AQ25002 · Compliance With Standing General Order 2021-01 Reporting Requirements
Opened Aug 20, 2025 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) has identified numerous incident reports submitted by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) in response to Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), in which the reported crashes occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports. The majority of these reports involved crashes in which the Standing General Order in place at the time required a report to be submitted within one or five days of Tesla receiving notice of the crash. When the reports were submitted, Tesla submitted them in one of two ways. Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis. Preliminary engagement between ODI and Tesla on the issue indicates that the timing of the reports was due to an issue with Tesla’s data collection, which, according to Tesla, has now been fixed. NHTSA is opening this Audit Query, a standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of the potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. As part of this review, NHTSA will assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the reports that were submitted include all of the required and available data. The SGO reports cited in the Opening Resume, can be found at NHTSA.gov/SGOCrashReporting under the following SGO 2021-01 report IDs: 13781-11020-1 13781-10844-1 13781-10843-1 13781-10530-1 13781-10160-1 13781-10159-1 13781-10157-1 13781-10146-1 13781-10122-1 13781-10098-1 13781-10097-1 13781-10096-1 13781-10095-1 13781-10094-1 13781-10093-1 13781-10023-1 13781-10022-1 13781-10021-1 13781-10020-1 13781-10017-1 13781-10016-1 13781-10015-1 13781-10014-1 13781-10013-1 13781-10012-1 13781-6047-1 13781-9930-1 13781-9917-1 13781-9928-1 13781-9925-1 13781-9924-1 13781-9923-1 13781-9922-1 13781-9835-1 13781-9834-1 13781-9833-1 13781-9832-1 13781-9831-1 13781-9830-1 13781-9829-1 13781-9827-1 13781-9818-1 13781-9780-1 13781-9779-1 13781-9778-1 13781-9777-1 13781-9775-1 13781-9774-1 13781-9773-1 13781-9772-1 13781-9771-1 13781-9770-1 13781-9728-1 13781-9688-1 13781-9715-1 13781-9714-1 13781-9713-1 13781-9712-1 13781-9711-1 13781-9710-1 13781-9709-1 13781-9696-1 13781-9695-1 13781-9694-1 13781-9693-1 13781-9692-1 13781-9691-1 13781-9690-1 13781-9687-1 13781-9686-1 13781-9342-1 13781-9319-1 13781-9019-1 13781-8910-1 13781-8732-1 13781-8712-1 13781-8310-1 13781-7897-1 13781-7895-1 13781-7835-1 13781-7798-1 13781-7797-1 13781-7758-1 13781-7757-1 13781-7756-1 13781-7755-1 13781-7667-1 13781-7399-1 13781-7398-1 13781-7397-1 13781-7396-1 13781-7395-1 13781-7394-1 13781-7393-1 13781-7389-1 13781-7388-1 13781-7387-1 13781-7386-1 13781-7385-1 13781-7383-1 13781-7187-1 13781-7186-1 13781-7185-1 13781-7184-1 13781-7181-1 13781-7023-1 13781-6399-1 13781-6389-1 13781-6388-1 13781-6387-1 13781-6386-1 13781-6379-1 13781-6378-1 13781-6377-1 13781-6375-1 13781-6214-1 13781-6172-1 13781-6155-1 13781-6154-1 13781-6122-1 13781-6120-1 13781-6118-1 13781-5800-1
PE24033 · Actually Smart Summon Sessions Resulting In low-speed Impacts.
Opened Jan 6, 2025 · Closed Apr 3, 2026
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas:autonomous/self Driving
On January 6, 2025, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation 24003 (PE24033) to investigate Actually Smart Summon (Summon) sessions resulting in crashes during active sessions. According to Tesla, Summon is a short-distance SAE Level 2 system, controlled by the user from a cell phone within a certain distance and intended for use in parking lots and on private property. ODI analyzed complaint data provided by Tesla as well as complaints submitted to ODI from consumers to identify Summon incidents resulting in crashes. ODI's analysis indicates that almost all Summon reported crashes involved minor property damage claims with no reported incidents involving a vulnerable road user, injury, fatality, or major property damage as indicated by an air bag deployment or vehicle tow away. Out of millions of Summon sessions, a fraction of 1% resulted in an incident. Almost all those incidents took place where, typically early in a Summon session, the system or person using the app failed to fully detect or respond appropriately to vehicle surroundings resulting in minor impacts. Incidents took place when app users did not have a complete 360-degree view of the surroundings in the app to assess situational awareness. This limited the app user’s ability to determine whether an impact was imminent during initial vehicle maneuvers such as reversing in close proximity to an obstacle or a curb. ODI found that the impacts most often occurred with parking gates, adjacently parked vehicles, and short parking bollards. During this investigation, ODI identified two Summon crashes related to camera blockages. In both crashes, Summon attempted to navigate a snowy parking lot with snow partially or fully obstructing the forward-facing cameras. Summon did not detect the camera blockage and the vehicles collided with unoccupied parked vehicles while navigating the parking lot. App users in both instances did not command a vehicle stop or pause despite the obstructed camera visible in the camera stream in the app. On January 15, 2025, Tesla released Over-the-Air (OTA) Software (SW) Update Action numbers 578998 and 579185 for vehicles in service to implement a camera blockage detection condition. Both OTAs improve camera blockage detection mechanisms. Additionally, on January 20, 2025, and January 30, 2025, Tesla identified additional system requirements associated with camera visibility checks and released OTA SW-578752 and SW-580322, respectively. These firmware updates reduce false negative camera blockage detections due to snow or condensation. In its investigation, ODI identified one Summon incident where the vehicle did not yield for a gate arm blocking a garage exit lane and the app user did not command a vehicle stop or pause, resulting in an impact. On February 6, 2025, Tesla deployed OTA SW-578839 to improve vehicle reaction to dynamic gates. This OTA update upgraded vehicle perception systems through a high-fidelity occupancy determination network, which uses data from vehicle sensory systems to improve reconstruction of field objects with high accuracy. On November 20, 2025, Tesla further improved vehicle performance by adding object detections from a separate neural network through OTA SW-580514. Owners of the affected vehicles received all six OTA SW updates. Tesla also released these SW updates to production vehicles. See online public file for detailed descriptions of all six OTA SW updates. Due to low incident occurrence and low incident severity, this preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete online public file.
Illustration