Dutch Regulators Shield Tesla FSD Data at Automaker's Request

Secrecy Deal Raises Transparency Concerns

Dutch vehicle authority RDW has confirmed that Tesla asked for a written promise that its Full Self-Driving safety data would never be made public, and emails reviewed by reporters show RDW found its own justification for agreeing 12. The Netherlands approved Tesla's FSD system four months before the story broke and has since pushed for its adoption across the European Union, yet RDW has declined to explain publicly why it concluded the driver-assistance system is safe enough to operate on Dutch roads 3. The arrangement has drawn criticism from transparency advocates who argue that a regulator championing a technology's EU-wide rollout should not simultaneously shield the evidence behind that endorsement from public scrutiny 23.

A Pattern of Scrutiny Around FSD

The Dutch episode lands amid a broader wave of regulatory and legal attention on Tesla's autonomy claims. In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently closed its investigation into Tesla's Smart Summon feature after finding only minor crashes, but its larger, more consequential probes into Full Self-Driving safety remain open heading into 2026 5. Tesla has also quietly settled a lawsuit tied to a 2023 crash in Arizona in which FSD was engaged when a Tesla Model Y struck and killed 71-year-old pedestrian Johna Story, a case described as among the first pedestrian fatalities directly linked to the system 8. Together, these developments illustrate that questions about FSD's real-world safety record are not confined to Europe but are playing out across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Tesla's Technical and Business Bets

Even as scrutiny mounts, Tesla continues to push FSD's capabilities and business model. AI chief Ashok Elluswamy said the company is betting on a smarter system that learns each driver's preferred speed rather than imposing manual speed caps, calling fixed maximum-speed controls an "anti-pattern" 4. That philosophy of leaning on software judgment over hard-coded limits sits awkwardly beside Elon Musk's admission that millions of existing Tesla vehicles running on Hardware 3 will never receive unsupervised FSD because the chip lacks the necessary capability, a limitation that raises fairness questions for owners who paid for the feature 6. Tesla has also shifted its commercial approach, offering FSD for $99 a month, a move that has split owners between those who welcome the lower entry cost and others frustrated by the changed terms 10.

Public Perception Remains Divided

Real-world anecdotes continue to fuel debate over how much trust FSD deserves. One widely discussed case involved an Uber driver who reportedly fell asleep for roughly 20 minutes, or about 90 percent of a trip, while FSD completed the drive, an episode that left online audiences split between viewing it as proof of the system's competence or a dangerous complacency risk 9. Industry coverage frames this as a pivotal period for autonomous driving broadly, with all eyes on how Tesla's technology, regulatory relationships, and public trust evolve together 7. The Dutch secrecy arrangement, layered onto open U.S. investigations, an Arizona settlement, and hardware limitations affecting millions of cars, underscores how unsettled the regulatory and public consensus around FSD remains.