Tesla’s latest clash with regulators has moved from the test track to the fine print, after a European authority publicly rejected the company’s suggestion that its Full Self-Driving software was on a glide path to approval. The pushback cuts to the heart of how Tesla markets its most ambitious driver-assistance features and how far regulators are willing to let the company frame future approvals as a foregone conclusion.
At stake is not only whether Full Self-Driving, or FSD, can legally operate on European roads, but also whether Tesla’s pattern of bold promises about autonomy has finally crossed a line that regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are no longer willing to tolerate.
The Dutch regulator’s rare public rebuke
The controversy began when Tesla suggested that its European regulator had effectively signed off on FSD, implying that only procedural steps remained before the software could be widely deployed. The Dutch authority responsible for vehicle type approval, the RDW, responded with an unusually direct statement saying it had not agreed to approve FSD and that any such claim was incorrect, a point that was later detailed in reporting that described how the regulator explicitly debunked Tesla’s assertion. I see that as a significant escalation, because regulators typically prefer quiet technical exchanges over public corrections.
By challenging Tesla’s narrative in public, the RDW signaled that it views the company’s messaging about FSD’s regulatory status as more than a harmless exaggeration. Follow-up coverage underscored that the Dutch agency wanted to make clear it had not promised any future approval and that FSD would still have to pass the same safety and compliance hurdles as any other advanced driver-assistance system, a stance echoed in a separate account that said the regulator had formally contradicted Tesla’s description of their discussions.
What Tesla claimed about EU approval
Tesla’s framing of the situation leaned heavily on the idea that regulatory acceptance of FSD in Europe was essentially a done deal, pending only routine steps. In public comments and communications highlighted in recent coverage, the company suggested that its European type-approval authority had already agreed in principle to allow FSD, creating the impression that the software’s rollout was a matter of timing rather than substance. Later reporting made clear that the RDW had not made such a commitment and that the suggestion of a pre-agreed approval was inaccurate, with one detailed account explaining how the regulator flatly denied any prior agreement to approve FSD.
That gap between Tesla’s optimistic language and the regulator’s more cautious stance is not just a semantic dispute. When a company tells customers that a controversial feature is effectively greenlit, it can shape expectations, influence purchase decisions, and fuel pressure campaigns on regulators. A separate report on the same episode noted that the RDW had to clarify that any future decision on FSD would depend on formal testing and legal criteria, contradicting the idea that approval was already in the bag, a point that was reinforced when another outlet reported that the regulator rejected the notion that FSD “will be approved” as Tesla had implied.
Regulator fatigue and the backlash from Tesla fans
Once the RDW pushed back, the dispute quickly spilled beyond official statements and into the online ecosystem that surrounds Tesla. Enthusiastic owners and investors, many of whom closely follow every hint about FSD’s progress, began contacting the Dutch authority directly to demand clarity or to lobby for approval. According to one account of the fallout, the regulator was inundated with messages from Tesla supporters and felt compelled to ask them to stop, a detail that surfaced when a social media post described how the agency had requested that Tesla enthusiasts cease contacting it about FSD.
That kind of grassroots pressure is unusual in the normally dry world of type-approval paperwork, and it highlights how Tesla’s communications can mobilize a passionate base in ways that regulators are not accustomed to handling. In online forums dedicated to automated driving, users dissected the RDW’s statement and Tesla’s earlier comments, with one widely shared discussion thread pointing out that the European regulator had explicitly denied the carmaker’s claim about FSD’s approval status. I read that as a sign that the dispute is now shaping perceptions among the very early adopters who are most likely to pay for FSD and to pressure regulators for faster deployment.
A pattern of scrutiny: California’s false advertising claims
The confrontation in Europe does not exist in a vacuum. In the United States, Tesla is already facing formal allegations that it misled consumers about the capabilities of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. A California regulator responsible for overseeing motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers filed accusations that Tesla had falsely advertised these systems, arguing that the company’s marketing suggested its cars could operate as fully autonomous vehicles when they could not, a charge laid out in detail when the agency said Tesla had falsely advertised Autopilot and Full Self-Driving to the public.
Those California accusations, which focus on phrases like “full self-driving capability” and promotional videos that appear to show unsupervised operation, mirror the concerns now surfacing in Europe about how Tesla describes FSD’s regulatory status. Additional coverage of the California case emphasized that the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles alleged Tesla’s statements could lead drivers to believe their vehicles were more capable than they actually are, a point that was echoed when another report explained that the regulator claimed Tesla had overstated the features of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving in its marketing.
How marketing language collides with safety law
At the core of these disputes is a simple tension: Tesla markets FSD as a transformative technology, while regulators treat it as a driver-assistance system that must be evaluated under existing safety rules. When Tesla uses phrases that suggest autonomy or imminent regulatory blessing, authorities worry that drivers may overtrust the system and that the company may be skirting consumer protection laws. One detailed analysis of the California case noted that the state’s complaint argued Tesla’s branding could mislead buyers into thinking their cars were capable of something they were not, a concern that was further explored when a separate report described how the regulator accused Tesla of misrepresenting the capabilities of Autopilot and FSD in its promotional materials.
In Europe, the RDW’s insistence that it has not pre-approved FSD reflects a similar instinct to keep the legal status of the technology grounded in what has actually been tested and authorized. By publicly contradicting Tesla’s suggestion of an agreed path to approval, the Dutch authority is effectively drawing a line between aspirational marketing and regulatory reality. I see that as part of a broader shift in which safety agencies are less willing to let companies frame future approvals as inevitable, especially when those claims might influence how drivers behave on the road or how investors value the technology.
The role of public perception and online video
Public understanding of FSD is shaped not only by official statements and website copy, but also by the countless videos that circulate online showing Tesla vehicles navigating city streets with minimal driver input. Supporters often point to these clips as proof that the technology is ready, while critics highlight moments where the system makes obvious mistakes or requires sudden human intervention. One widely viewed example, which has been cited in discussions about how FSD performs in real-world conditions, shows a Tesla navigating complex traffic while the driver keeps hands near the wheel, a scenario captured in a video that has been shared as evidence of both progress and risk in Full Self-Driving’s on-road behavior.
These videos can create a powerful narrative that FSD is essentially finished and only waiting on bureaucrats, which makes Tesla’s claims about imminent approval even more sensitive. When regulators like the RDW or California’s DMV push back, they are not only correcting the record for lawyers and engineers, they are also trying to recalibrate public expectations that have been shaped by years of optimistic demos and viral clips. In that context, the Dutch regulator’s decision to publicly contradict Tesla’s suggestion of pre-arranged approval looks less like a narrow dispute over wording and more like an attempt to reassert control over how the safety and legality of automated driving systems are understood.
What the clash signals for Tesla’s autonomy roadmap
For Tesla, the immediate consequence of the RDW’s rebuke is reputational rather than technical. The company can still pursue formal approval for FSD in Europe, and regulators have not ruled out the possibility that some version of the software could eventually meet their standards. But the public nature of the correction, combined with the existing false-advertising accusations in California, suggests that authorities are increasingly skeptical of how Tesla communicates about autonomy, and that they are willing to challenge the company when its narrative gets ahead of the legal process. One synthesis of the European dispute noted that the RDW’s denial of any pre-agreed approval undercut Tesla’s timeline for rolling out FSD in the region, a point that was highlighted when coverage explained how the regulator had directly contradicted the company’s projected path for the feature.
Looking ahead, I expect regulators to scrutinize not just the technical performance of FSD, but also the way Tesla describes its capabilities and regulatory status in every major market. The RDW’s decision to publicly correct the record, California’s formal accusations of false advertising, and the visible frustration of officials who have asked Tesla fans to stop lobbying them all point in the same direction: the era when bold autonomy claims could pass with minimal official pushback is ending. For drivers, investors, and policymakers, the latest dispute is a reminder that the road to self-driving cars will be shaped as much by legal language and consumer protection rules as by code and sensors.
More from MorningOverview