NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
98 reportsMileage unknown · Jan 27, 2026
Visibility/wiper
We are currently experiencing single-digit temperatures here in Pittsburgh. I placed my vehicle in “defrost” mode, and while it did clear the windshield, it also caused the glass to crack. I contacted Tesla and brought the vehicle in for an assessment, at which point I was informed the damage would not be covered. My car has onl…
Read full complaint
We are currently experiencing single-digit temperatures here in Pittsburgh. I placed my vehicle in “defrost” mode, and while it did clear the windshield, it also caused the glass to crack. I contacted Tesla and brought the vehicle in for an assessment, at which point I was informed the damage would not be covered. My car has only 14,000 miles and will be one year old next month. It is essentially brand new and has been meticulously maintained. There were no prior flaws or damage to the windshield. Despite this, Tesla refused coverage for what is a known issue: windshield cracking caused by defrost mode in extreme cold temperatures. This issue is widely documented online. Customer service confirmed that Tesla does not cover glass damage, even when it cracks spontaneously as a result of using defrost mode as intended. The quoted repair cost is $1,500. This experience reflects a lack of accountability and failure to stand behind the product.
NHTSA ODI #11713702
Mileage unknown · Jan 26, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceUnknown Or OtherCrash
On January 17, 2026 the vehicle self-accelerated when put in reverse and crashed into a parked truck. This was the second time this occurred. The prior incident occurred on November 29, 2025 when backing out of the garage at our home. The new incident occurred the FIRST time we put the car in reverse after receiving it back afte…
Read full complaint
On January 17, 2026 the vehicle self-accelerated when put in reverse and crashed into a parked truck. This was the second time this occurred. The prior incident occurred on November 29, 2025 when backing out of the garage at our home. The new incident occurred the FIRST time we put the car in reverse after receiving it back after repair from the prior accident (we received it on January 15. 2026 and this was the first time we drove it since then). We had driven the car forward with the full self driving feature turned on and engaged (part of the time and part manually) without incident. However when placed in reverse with the full delf driving turned on but not enagaged the car "took off." It is only through good fortune no one was seriously injured or killed. Self acceleration in reverse only occurred after the vehicle was serviced by Tesla to repair the full self driving system which, at that time, would only engage intermittently.
NHTSA ODI #11713398
Mileage unknown · Jan 26, 2026
Electrical SystemForward Collision AvoidanceLane Departure
All safety and most computer related features in the vehicle have failed. Cruise control, backup cameras, all other cameras, the navigation (assuming this is also impacting the projection of remaining battery life as my car always thinks it is at my home), warning signals for approaching obstacles/dangers, cruise control of any …
Read full complaint
All safety and most computer related features in the vehicle have failed. Cruise control, backup cameras, all other cameras, the navigation (assuming this is also impacting the projection of remaining battery life as my car always thinks it is at my home), warning signals for approaching obstacles/dangers, cruise control of any kind does now work, lane departure warning has failed, and automatic windshield wipers do not work. This happened without warning and was not related to an update. On January 13, 2026, the car worked in the morning and then all of these issues started happening. I made a Tesla service appointment, but they are not able to see me until February 3, 2026.
NHTSA ODI #11713306
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 · Jan 15, 2026
Air BagsForward Collision AvoidanceCrashInjury
Passenger side airbag did not deploy. Emergency auto brake did not seem to work. The passenger side of the vehicle was struck by other car at high speed and sustained significant damage
NHTSA ODI #11711221
Mileage unknown · Jan 15, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed Control
Tesla Supervised Self Driving (FSSD) update 14 removed the ability for the vehicle operator to set speed targets. Additionally, their system is unable to accurately determine speed limits for many roadways. The discrepancy between FSSDs perceived speed limit and actual speed limit can be as much at +/- 25mph. The discrepancy can…
Read full complaint
Tesla Supervised Self Driving (FSSD) update 14 removed the ability for the vehicle operator to set speed targets. Additionally, their system is unable to accurately determine speed limits for many roadways. The discrepancy between FSSDs perceived speed limit and actual speed limit can be as much at +/- 25mph. The discrepancy can occur suddenly and at any time during a drive, even on stretches of road with a consistent speed limit. This results in moments of dangerous acceleration and/or deceleration that is not requested by the vehicle operator or can be reasonably anticipated. This causes erratic driving behavior to both the Tesla and to other motorist in the vicinity. Erratic, unpredictable driving is a major cause of traffic accidents that can lead to serious damage, injury, or death. Prior versions allowed the operator to set a speed target, similar to standard cruise control, that the vehicle attempted to maintain and would not exceed. FSSD v14 does not allow the vehicle operator to have any control over the speed of the vehicle to any degree that meaningfully contributes towards safe, legal driving.
NHTSA ODI #11711074
Mileage unknown · Jan 11, 2026
Seat Belts
I swerved in the road in the back passenger seat seatbelt came unbuckled with a car seat in the car in the car seat came out
NHTSA ODI #11710203
Mileage unknown · Dec 28, 2025
StructureUnknown Or OtherVisibility/wiper
Date: December 28, 2025 Time: Approximately 3:25 PM Vehicle: 2026 Tesla Model Y Incident Location: Southbound on the I-35N feeder road, just north of Highway 114. Safe Harbor Location: Burger King (15925 N Hwy 114, Northlake, TX) Statement of Facts: I was driving my 2026 Tesla Model Y southbound on the I-35N feeder road at appro…
Read full complaint
Date: December 28, 2025 Time: Approximately 3:25 PM Vehicle: 2026 Tesla Model Y Incident Location: Southbound on the I-35N feeder road, just north of Highway 114. Safe Harbor Location: Burger King (15925 N Hwy 114, Northlake, TX) Statement of Facts: I was driving my 2026 Tesla Model Y southbound on the I-35N feeder road at approximately 3:25 PM today. I was traveling at a steady speed of 55 MPH. Without any warning chime or dashboard notification, the front hood (frunk) suddenly and violently flew open. The hood slammed into the windshield, shattering the glass across my entire field of vision and completely obstructing the road ahead. I was forced to perform an emergency "blind" stop on the feeder road. Once the vehicle was under control, I drove at approximately 10 MPH with zero forward visibility to reach a safe location off the main road. I pulled into the Burger King parking lot located at the intersection of I-35 and Highway 114 to inspect the damage and call for assistance. Key Safety Failures: • Software Failure: At no point before the hood flew open did the vehicle alert me that the frunk was unlatched. • Mechanical Failure: The latching mechanism failed to hold at standard highway speeds, creating a life-threatening visibility hazard. • Structural Damage: The windshield is fully shattered, and the hood and hinges are visibly warped from the force of the impact. Conclusion: This incident was a catastrophic safety failure. Given Tesla's history of recalls for this exact issue (NHTSA Recall 24V-554), it is clear that this 2026 model either suffers from the same defect or the previous "software fix" is insufficient to protect drivers.
NHTSA ODI #11707389
Mileage unknown · Dec 25, 2025
Air BagsService BrakesSteeringCrash
I am writing to formally report a serious safety incident involving a Tesla vehicle and to document multiple critical system failures that occurred during an accident, resulting in physical injuries to me. On the 12/24/2025, while operating Tesla under rainy conditions, I experienced a sudden and dangerous malfunction of the …
Read full complaint
I am writing to formally report a serious safety incident involving a Tesla vehicle and to document multiple critical system failures that occurred during an accident, resulting in physical injuries to me. On the 12/24/2025, while operating Tesla under rainy conditions, I experienced a sudden and dangerous malfunction of the vehicle. During the event, the steering system became unresponsive and appeared to lock, preventing me from maintaining control of the vehicle. Simultaneously, the braking system failed to respond as expected despite my attempt to apply the brakes. These failures significantly impaired my ability to avoid or mitigate the collision. Most concerning, the vehicle’s airbag system did not deploy during the impact. Given the severity of the collision and the resulting injuries, the lack of airbag deployment represents a serious failure of a critical safety system designed to protect occupants in such events. As a direct result of this incident and the apparent malfunction of multiple safety systems, I sustained physical injuries that required medical evaluation and treatment. Beyond the physical harm, the incident caused significant emotional distress and raised serious concerns about the safety and reliability of the vehicle. I am submitting this complaint to formally document these safety failures and to request a thorough investigation into the performance of the steering, braking, and airbag systems involved in this incident. I believe this matter presents a significant safety concern not only for myself but also for other drivers and passengers who rely on these systems to function properly in emergency situations. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me of the next steps in your investigation process. I am prepared to provide additional documentation, including medical records, photographs, vehicle data, and incident details, upon request. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter
NHTSA ODI #11707046
Mileage unknown · Dec 17, 2025
Unknown Or Other
On December 16 and 17, 2025, the manufacturer (Tesla, Inc.) utilized remote telemetry to modify the software state of my 2025 Model Y while it was being operated on public roadways. The manufacturer remotely switched the vehicle profile to "Inventory Mode" (Error Code displayed: "Delivery Type: PICKUP_SERVICE_CENTER"). The Safe…
Read full complaint
On December 16 and 17, 2025, the manufacturer (Tesla, Inc.) utilized remote telemetry to modify the software state of my 2025 Model Y while it was being operated on public roadways. The manufacturer remotely switched the vehicle profile to "Inventory Mode" (Error Code displayed: "Delivery Type: PICKUP_SERVICE_CENTER"). The Safety Failure: This unauthorized remote manipulation immediately DISABLED the electronic Child Safety Locks without driver consent or warning. My minor children were seated in the rear of the vehicle at the time. The rear doors, which had been locked for child safety, suddenly became operable from the inside while the vehicle was in motion - and my children actually opened the doors while the vehicle was in operation. (Thus my discovery of the issue) The Hazard: This defect allows the manufacturer to remotely override and deactivate critical safety retention features (Child Locks) on a moving vehicle. This created an immediate risk of accidental door opening and passenger ejection for the minor occupants. Manufacturer Response: The manufacturer admitted in writing (email dated Dec 15, 2025) that there was "No Active Financing" on the vehicle, yet persisted in accessing the vehicle's safety computer systems to alter its status. This demonstrates a systemic defect where Tesla’s remote access tools lack safety interlocks, allowing them to degrade safety features on vehicles currently in motion/use by consumers. Status: The vehicle remains unsafe as the manufacturer retains the ability to toggle safety locks remotely without operator input.
NHTSA ODI #11705739
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