NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
115 reportsMileage unknown · Jun 30, 2026
Back Over PreventionLane DepartureUnknown Or OtherCrashInjury
On May 24, 2026, at approximately 8:28 AM, I activated Actually Smart Summon on my 2025 Tesla Model 3 using the Tesla mobile application to reverse the vehicle from my garage. Before this incident, the vehicle displayed no warnings, alerts, messages, or other indication of a problem, and I had previously usd Actually Smart Summo…
Read full complaint
On May 24, 2026, at approximately 8:28 AM, I activated Actually Smart Summon on my 2025 Tesla Model 3 using the Tesla mobile application to reverse the vehicle from my garage. Before this incident, the vehicle displayed no warnings, alerts, messages, or other indication of a problem, and I had previously usd Actually Smart Summon without similar behavior. Shortly after activation, the Tesla mobile application became unresponsive, and the vehicle did not stop despite my attempts to stop it through the app. I attempted to open the vehicle door during the incident but was unable to do so while the maneuver continued. Because I could no longer stop the vehicle through the app or access the vehicle, I placed my phone in my pocket so I could use both hands to try to stop the vehicle and prevent further damage. At that point, I was no longer pressing or holding the Actually Smart Summon control in the application. As the vehicle continued reversing, I repeatedly repositioned myself behind it and pushed against the rear of the vehicle with my body multiple times. Despite this physical intervention, the vehicle continued reversing and applying rearward force, forcing me to repeatedly move out of its path to avoid being pinned between the vehicle and my neighbor s garage. The vehicle pressed into my neighbor s garage with enough force that the impact transferred to the parked vehicle inside the garage. It did not stop upon the initial impact and continued pressing into the garage afterward. This sustained movement is clearly visible on the preserved TeslaCam footage and independent home-security recordings. I narrowly escaped being crushed between the vehicle and the garage while attempting to stop the vehicle and prevent further damage, sustaining a muscle strain in the process. The incident created a serious risk of bodily injury in addition to substantial property damage. I do not know which specific component or system failed. Based on the sequence of events, the incident
NHTSA ODI #11747470
Mileage unknown · Jun 16, 2026
Unknown Or OtherInjury
The passenger side front fold down visor/mirror failed. It is available for inspection upon request. The safety of myself, the driver, and the front passenger, were put at risk, because the design of the car allows the front passenger headset to be moved forward via the power seat adjustment to a point where it presses against…
Read full complaint
The passenger side front fold down visor/mirror failed. It is available for inspection upon request. The safety of myself, the driver, and the front passenger, were put at risk, because the design of the car allows the front passenger headset to be moved forward via the power seat adjustment to a point where it presses against the visor/mirror, and causes the glass in the mirror to shatter. If you never open the visor, you don't know that the glass is shattered. So when we are on the highway, and my passenger folds down the mirror to check her make up, small glass shards fly everywhere, requiring both the driver and passengers full attention on a busy highway. The dealer advised before even looking at the car that the problem would not be covered under warranty, and want to charge $200 for repair. I cancelled the appointment. Independent research shows this is a known issue caused by a design flaw with the passenger front seat being allowed to move into the zone of the visor/mirror. The vehicle has not been inspected due to their refusal to do so at their own cost. There was zero warning from delivery until now via any method whether it be a warning label, screen, or in the manual.
NHTSA ODI #11744449
Mileage unknown · Jun 12, 2026
Wheels
On May 16th, I felt the car vibration very much on the free way. I scheduled service on May 21st. Tesla technician found it was the interior foam detached problem. He said this happened on many cars. I asked for free replacement for two defect tires since the car was only drove one and half year about 17k miles. But he refused i…
Read full complaint
On May 16th, I felt the car vibration very much on the free way. I scheduled service on May 21st. Tesla technician found it was the interior foam detached problem. He said this happened on many cars. I asked for free replacement for two defect tires since the car was only drove one and half year about 17k miles. But he refused it because Tesla only replace it for free if the wear of tire is higher than 4 thread. He said mine is 3 thread and suggested me to buy new tires and replace them. He said Tesla normally would not remove the detached foam for customer any more. I did not agree. Finally, Tesla remove the detached foam and I paid for the service. Because this detached foam issue happens a lot, it is quality issue. Tesla or Michelin should repair and replace it for free.
NHTSA ODI #11743815
Mileage unknown · Jun 10, 2026
Electrical SystemSeatsUnknown Or Other
Since leasing this car in April of 2025, it has been services 8 times totaling over 30 days of down time. The issues occured in order from oldest to newest/current: May of 2025 - Headliner trim falling down, unsuccessfully repaired by mobile technician June of 2025 - Windows stopped working. Center console door stopped shutting.…
Read full complaint
Since leasing this car in April of 2025, it has been services 8 times totaling over 30 days of down time. The issues occured in order from oldest to newest/current: May of 2025 - Headliner trim falling down, unsuccessfully repaired by mobile technician June of 2025 - Windows stopped working. Center console door stopped shutting. Headliner still falling down. July of 2025 - Front wiring harness melted and took out the AC - the car didn't provide a single warning. The AC just stopped working. Passenger seat replaced for cosmetic defect August of 2025 - Continued issues with AC and turn signal buttons December of 2025 - Steering Wheel Rattle and Clunking, Suspension noises June of 2025 - Suspension still rough and making grinding noises, turn signal buttons still not functioning consistently, front passenger fold down mirror shattered because the passenger seat calibration allows it to slide into the mirror. Tesla has shown zero empathy towards any of these issues. A buyback was requested, but the offer would have left us without a car and with a huge pay off. We asked for help moving into another car, and we are ghosted.
NHTSA ODI #11743287
Mileage unknown · May 26, 2026
Unknown Or Other
This model lacks a well-tested turn signal lever, replacing it with arrows on the steering wheel. This method of activating turns signals is fundamentally unreliable and consequently dangerous. As an owner of the subject Tesla for just over one year, I find that I regularly fail to achieve correct activation, even with repeate…
Read full complaint
This model lacks a well-tested turn signal lever, replacing it with arrows on the steering wheel. This method of activating turns signals is fundamentally unreliable and consequently dangerous. As an owner of the subject Tesla for just over one year, I find that I regularly fail to achieve correct activation, even with repeated attempts to do so. The steering wheel control may: Not activate at all, even with multiple attempts to activate the signal. I find no consistent patter as to why pressing the arrow or vicinity of the arrow fails to achieve activation. Worse, may activate in the opposite direction to the pending movement. This is the most dangerous situation, misleading other drivers with regard to the intended movement. It’s also not apparent to me that the opposite direction has been activated. The problem is made worse by: Lack of tactile feedback from the controls. The switches do not move perceptibly, nor is there any other feedback, such as a click. The ridge between left and right arrows doesn’t provide sufficient indication of correct or incorrect placement of the thumb on the controls. Pressing on the controls within the vicinity of the arrows may or may not result in activation at all or activate the opposite one. The position of the control varies depending on the steering wheel angle. The control may be very difficult to access, particularly where a sequence of turns in opposite directions must be executed. Specifically, it is essentially impossible to activate for the second movement while making the preceding turn. I understand that Tesla recognizes the problem and owner dissatisfaction in that it offers a retrofit with a conventional and well-tested turn signal lever for $600. Tesla must be compelled to recall these vehicles and retrofit them with a conventional turn signal lever or other effective control at no charge to owners.
NHTSA ODI #11740079
Mileage unknown · May 15, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceCrash
Tesla FSD out of control and run into a light pole
NHTSA ODI #11738196
Mileage unknown · May 13, 2026
Unknown Or Other
Tesla is in a protracted battle with me over fees related to damaged property and illegal self-help repossession procedures. They have been formally notified that any trespass onto my property is not permitted because they said they sent armed repossession agents because of “angry customers” like me. I currently have a complaint…
Read full complaint
Tesla is in a protracted battle with me over fees related to damaged property and illegal self-help repossession procedures. They have been formally notified that any trespass onto my property is not permitted because they said they sent armed repossession agents because of “angry customers” like me. I currently have a complaint for those issues filed with the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Tesla’s recent attempts to repossess the vehicle were initiated approximately two hours after informing the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office that Tesla had not contacted me in any way, that Tesla was not being factual. Tesla’s response to that was again to not contact me but to send me a form letter stating they intend to disable my vehicle remotely. I am a privacy-minded person, and part of choosing the vehicle was a modicum of privacy guaranteed by Tesla. Tesla publicly says they do not so this, I was told they do not so this in the course of buying the car, and recent news seems to state they say they can’t do it. They have yet to repair a windshield and cabin camera that seem to be damaged. In other words, they intend to disable and lock my car without my permission or knowledge, without verifying the contents of the car. In other words, if there happens to be an occupant at the time they illegally disable the car, they intend to kill them. I’m asking that my contact information be kept private because they have already threatened to use lethal force, make extremely reckless decisions regarding their procedures, and retaliated by initiating this process when I informed a government agency that they lied to them.
NHTSA ODI #11737572
10,100 miles · Apr 10, 2026
Electrical System
The contact owns a 2025 Tesla Model 3. The contact stated that while driving on several occasions with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Mode engaged, the vehicle stopped abruptly while approaching a yellow traffic light, nearly causing the head of the driver to strike the windshield on one occasion. The contact stated that the vehicle fa…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2025 Tesla Model 3. The contact stated that while driving on several occasions with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Mode engaged, the vehicle stopped abruptly while approaching a yellow traffic light, nearly causing the head of the driver to strike the windshield on one occasion. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to gradually come to a stop. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 10,100.
NHTSA ODI #11730323
Mileage unknown · Apr 9, 2026
Lane DepartureSteeringCrash
On March 14, 2026, at 20:54:21 UTC, while the Autopilot system was engaged, the vehicle malfunctioned by initiating a sudden, unprompted right-hand steering command within 0.3 seconds, resulting in a collision with another vehicle traveling in the adjacent right lane. Telemetry data from the event confirms the system failed to m…
Read full complaint
On March 14, 2026, at 20:54:21 UTC, while the Autopilot system was engaged, the vehicle malfunctioned by initiating a sudden, unprompted right-hand steering command within 0.3 seconds, resulting in a collision with another vehicle traveling in the adjacent right lane. Telemetry data from the event confirms the system failed to maintain the lane despite the Primary Steering Torque Sensor measuring 0.00 Nm, proving no driver input caused the maneuver. This unintended steering event at cruising speed created an immediate safety risk to myself and the occupants of the other vehicle. To date, the manufacturer (Tesla) has declined to perform a technical or remote diagnostic review, redirecting the case to a collision center instead. No warning lamps, audio chimes, or system messages occurred prior to the failure; the vehicle is currently available for inspection and raw CSV telemetry logs can be provided to investigators upon request.
NHTSA ODI #11730092
Mileage unknown · Apr 3, 2026
StructureCrash
On April 23, 2025, at approximately 8:15 PM, I activated Tesla's Smart Summon feature to retrieve my vehicle from a parking spot. While operating autonomously under Smart Summon, the vehicle failed to detect a pole in the parking area and drove into it, causing approximately $11,000 in damage to the vehicle. I was not inside or …
Read full complaint
On April 23, 2025, at approximately 8:15 PM, I activated Tesla's Smart Summon feature to retrieve my vehicle from a parking spot. While operating autonomously under Smart Summon, the vehicle failed to detect a pole in the parking area and drove into it, causing approximately $11,000 in damage to the vehicle. I was not inside or manually controlling the vehicle at the time. The vehicle's autonomous driving software failed to identify and avoid a stationary obstacle.
NHTSA ODI #11729029
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