Most car owners who received a wireless software update in the past year did not notice any improvement. Only 27 percent said their vehicle actually got better after the patch, according to J.D. Power’s latest Vehicle Dependability Study. The finding lands at a moment when federal regulators are pushing safety-critical fixes through the same wireless channel, raising a pointed question: if the technology rarely delivers a visible benefit, what happens when it carries real risk?
Why the 27 percent figure stings for automakers
The gap between what automakers promise and what drivers experience has widened. J.D. Power reported that 40 percent of owners received at least one software update during the study period, and 63 percent of those updates arrived over the air. Yet 58 percent of recipients said they noticed no difference at all. The study also flagged an approximate 14 percent increase in owner-reported problems, translating to roughly 2.5 additional problems per 100 vehicles. That combination, more updates paired with more complaints, suggests that wireless patches are not solving the issues drivers care about and may sometimes be creating new ones.
The stakes go beyond inconvenience. NHTSA issued an urgent warning telling owners of certain Volvo plug-in hybrid and electric models to install an over-the-air recall because the vehicles could lose braking ability under specific conditions. That recall depends entirely on owners accepting and completing a wireless download. When nearly three-quarters of update recipients already feel the process changes nothing meaningful, the risk is that drivers begin ignoring notifications, including the ones that prevent brake failure.
Botched patches and growing recall reliance
The Volvo brake recall is not an isolated case. Jeep pushed an over-the-air update to Wrangler 4xe models that triggered major powertrain glitches, leaving some owners stranded. The company had to cancel the original patch and issue a second wireless fix to restore normal operation. A subsequent recall addressed the fallout. That sequence-update causes problem, second update attempts repair, formal recall follows-illustrates how the technology can compound rather than contain defects.
NHTSA’s 2025 Annual Recalls Report tracks the number of recalled vehicles remedied partially or fully through over-the-air updates by recall year and manufacturer from 2021 through 2025. The data shows wireless fixes now account for a growing share of the recall remedy pipeline. That shift saves automakers the cost of dealership visits, but it transfers responsibility to the owner, who must have adequate connectivity, battery charge, and awareness that a critical patch is waiting.
A legal analysis published through the University of Michigan Law School examined how many manufacturer-initiated updates fall outside the formal recall process entirely. The academic review found significant transparency gaps: owners often receive vague release notes that do not explain whether a patch addresses a safety defect or a minor software tweak. Without clear disclosure, drivers have no reliable way to distinguish a routine infotainment fix from a change that affects steering, acceleration, or braking.
Missing data on whether OTA safety fixes actually reduce complaints
One question the available evidence cannot yet answer is whether routing safety fixes through wireless updates leads to better or worse outcomes than traditional dealer-performed recalls. NHTSA publishes defect investigation metrics that track recall and investigation counts, but the agency does not break out post-update complaint rates by manufacturer or by delivery method. That gap makes it difficult to compare, for example, whether a brand that relies heavily on wireless patches sees its complaint rate drop as fast as one that brings vehicles into dealerships.
The J.D. Power study methodology, based on owner-reported problems in three-year-old vehicles, captures perception rather than engineering outcomes. No publicly available dataset currently matches individual wireless updates to subsequent owner complaints at the vehicle level. Until that link exists, the 27 percent satisfaction figure and the rising problem count stand as the best available signals, and both point in the same direction.
The Volvo brake recall also lacks published completion-rate data. For a traditional recall, NHTSA tracks the percentage of affected vehicles that receive the fix over time. For wireless recalls, completion depends on whether the owner’s vehicle is connected and whether the owner approves the download. If completion rates for wireless safety recalls lag behind dealer-performed ones, the efficiency gains for manufacturers come at a direct cost to public safety. That trade-off has not been measured in any public report.
What drivers should do before the next update notification
Owners who receive an over-the-air update notification should check whether it is tied to a formal recall by searching their vehicle identification number on NHTSA’s recall lookup tool or the automaker’s website. If the update is clearly labeled as a safety recall, it deserves priority, even if past patches seemed trivial. For non-recall updates, owners may want to wait a few days and scan enthusiast forums or owner groups to see whether early adopters report new glitches.
Consumer advocates advise treating wireless updates much like smartphone operating system upgrades: read the description carefully, confirm the vehicle has enough battery charge, and avoid starting the process right before a critical trip. Guidance from independent testers emphasizes that some updates can disable key features temporarily or require the car to remain parked for an extended period. Understanding those constraints in advance can prevent a routine patch from turning into a roadside headache.
Drivers should also review their vehicle’s settings to see how updates are approved. Many models allow owners to choose between automatic installation, scheduled installation during off-hours, or manual approval. Opting for manual or scheduled updates can reduce the chance that a surprise download alters vehicle behavior right before a commute. At the same time, owners need to monitor notifications so that critical safety fixes are not left pending indefinitely.
For fleets and commercial operators, the calculation is more complex. Large operators may benefit from centralized control over when and how updates are installed, but they also carry higher exposure if a flawed patch sidelines multiple vehicles at once. Documenting when each vehicle receives a particular update, and tracking any problems that arise afterward, can help build an internal record that compensates for the lack of public, vehicle-level data.
What regulators and automakers need to fix next
The current evidence points to three gaps that regulators and manufacturers could close without abandoning over-the-air technology. First, they could require clearer labeling of safety-related updates, distinguishing them from convenience or infotainment changes. That would help owners recognize when an update is as serious as a brake or steering recall, even if it arrives silently over Wi-Fi.
Second, NHTSA could expand its reporting framework to include completion rates and post-update complaint trends for wireless recalls. Adding delivery-method fields to existing defect metrics would allow analysts to compare outcomes for dealer-performed and over-the-air remedies. If one pathway consistently leaves more unresolved problems on the road, policymakers would have a concrete basis for tightening standards.
Third, automakers could publish more detailed release notes and maintain accessible archives of past updates. Even brief, plain-language summaries of what changed in each patch would help owners, independent repair shops, and safety researchers identify patterns, such as repeated attempts to fix the same subsystem or spikes in complaints after certain versions.
Until those reforms take hold, drivers remain the last line of defense in a system that increasingly depends on invisible code changes to keep vehicles safe. Wireless updates can, in theory, correct defects faster and at lower cost than traditional recalls. But with most owners reporting little to no benefit, and with serious safety fixes now traveling through the same channel as routine tweaks, the industry has yet to prove that over-the-air technology is delivering on its promise rather than merely shifting the burden of risk onto the people behind the wheel.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
