According to TechCrunch, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has sent Tesla a new letter detailing at least 80 instances where its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software ran red lights or crossed into the wrong lane. The agency’s Office of Defects Investigation compiled 62 driver complaints, 14 reports from Tesla itself, and four media reports, up from around 50 violations cited when the probe opened in October 2024. The letter, which you can read here, kicks off a formal discovery process, demanding Tesla explain how FSD detects traffic signals and lane markings and whether it gives drivers sufficient warnings. Tesla’s responses are due by January 19, 2026. This comes the same week CEO Elon Musk claimed the latest FSD version would allow drivers to text while using the system, a statement that contradicts laws in nearly every state.
The investigation deepens
So this is the second active NHTSA probe into FSD in just a few months. The first, opened last October, looks at how the software handles low-visibility conditions like fog and glare. Now they’re zeroing in on fundamental perception failures: can the car see a red light or a solid yellow line, and does it know what to do when it sees them? The 80 incidents aren’t just random glitches; they’re specific, reportable failures of the system’s core promise. And here’s the thing: the original batch of complaints had a known hotspot—a particular intersection in Maryland that Tesla said it fixed. The new complaints suggest the problem is more widespread, or that the “fix” wasn’t complete. The agency is now asking for incredibly detailed data, like exactly how many cars have FSD and how often it’s actually engaged. They’re also demanding all customer complaints Tesla has received, which is a big deal because, as reported by FuelArc, Tesla heavily redacts its submissions to regulators.
The core problem is perception
Basically, this gets to the heart of the “vision-only” debate. Tesla’s system relies entirely on cameras and AI to interpret the world, unlike other systems that use additional sensors like lidar. Reading traffic signals and lane markings in every possible lighting condition, weather scenario, and with obscured or faded paint is an immense computational challenge. The system has to not only see the object but also understand its meaning in context—is that a red light for my lane? Is that line dashed or solid? Is that sign still valid? When you’re dealing with the chaos of real-world roads, the edge cases are endless. And every one of those 80 complaints represents a failure at that fundamental perception and classification level. It’s not just a bug; it’s the system failing to understand the rules of the road it’s driving on.
The timing couldn’t be worse
Now, all of this is happening while Elon Musk is making bold, and frankly legally dubious, claims about the system’s capabilities. Promising that FSD will allow drivers to text is a direct contradiction of the “Supervised” part of its name and of every state’s distracted driving laws. It sends a terrible mixed message. Is FSD a driver-assistance feature that requires constant supervision, or is it so capable you can check your Instagram? Regulators are clearly leaning toward the former, and this investigation is their method of enforcing that view. They want to know if the warnings to drivers are sufficient because, at the end of the day, the human is still legally responsible. But if the CEO is telling people they can tune out, what good are warning chimes?
What happens next
This is a serious escalation. NHTSA has moved from gathering initial reports to a formal “request for information,” which is often a precursor to a forced recall. Tesla has to hand over a mountain of data by early 2026. If the agency isn’t satisfied with the responses—or if the data shows a clear pattern of defects—the next step could be a demand for a software update to fix the issues, or even to disable certain functions. For a company that sells FSD as a $12,000 (or monthly subscription) add-on and bases much of its future valuation on this technology, that’s an existential threat. The real question is: are these 80 incidents just the tip of the iceberg? With Tesla’s history of redacting reports, it’s hard to know the full scope. But for regulators, and for anyone sharing the road with these cars, 80 confirmed violations is 80 too many.
