Tesla’s promise to bring its Full Self-Driving software to European roads has collided with a blunt reality: the Dutch regulator that would have to sign off on the system says it has not agreed to do so. What looked like a clear path to approval now appears far more uncertain, raising fresh questions about how quickly advanced driver assistance can move from marketing pitch to legal reality in the European Union.
Instead of a straightforward regulatory green light, Tesla is facing a public contradiction from the very authority it presented as a partner, and that clash is likely to shape how investors, drivers, and other carmakers judge the company’s autonomy timeline in Europe.
How Tesla turned a social post into a regulatory flashpoint
The latest tension began when Tesla used a weekend social media post to suggest that its Full Self-Driving software was on track for European deployment. In that message, the company said that the Dutch authority RDW, which acts as Tesla’s EU regulator, “has committed to granting Netherlands National approval in February 2026,” framing the path to launch as essentially scheduled rather than speculative. The claim implied that the key regulatory hurdle was already cleared in principle and that the remaining work was largely procedural.
That framing quickly ran into trouble once RDW responded. The regulator publicly denied that it had agreed to approve Full Self-Driving, contradicting Tesla’s suggestion that a commitment was already in place and casting doubt on the idea that a February 2026 signoff was locked in. Reporting on the dispute makes clear that the Dutch authority is pushing back on the notion that it has pre-authorized a system that still needs to be fully assessed, a stance that undercuts Tesla’s attempt to present European approval as a near certainty rather than an open question.
RDW’s denial and what it signals about EU caution
When a regulator feels compelled to correct a company’s public statements, it usually reflects more than a minor misunderstanding. After Tesla said that RDW “has committed to granting Netherlands National approval in February 2026,” the Dutch authority responded that it had not agreed to approve Full Self-Driving and that no such commitment exists. That denial, detailed in coverage of the dispute, signals that RDW wants to preserve its independence and avoid any perception that it is rubber-stamping a high profile technology before the formal review is complete.
The episode also highlights how sensitive European regulators are to claims that might preempt their own processes. By explicitly rejecting the idea that it has already promised approval, RDW is reinforcing the message that Full Self-Driving will be judged on technical evidence, safety performance, and legal compliance, not on a timeline announced by Tesla. For a system that sits at the edge of what current EU rules allow, that insistence on process is a reminder that political pressure and public expectations will not easily override regulatory caution.
Why the February 2026 timeline is now in doubt
Tesla’s reference to February 2026 was not a casual aside. By stating that RDW “has committed to granting Netherlands National approval in February 2026,” the company effectively told customers and investors that a specific month had been agreed for a key regulatory milestone. That kind of precision can move markets and shape consumer expectations, especially for a feature as heavily marketed as Full Self-Driving. It also creates a benchmark against which Tesla will now be judged if the date slips or the approval never materializes.
RDW’s denial throws that timeline into question. If the regulator has not actually committed to a February 2026 approval, then the date looks more like Tesla’s aspiration than a shared plan. The gap between those two interpretations matters: a target set by the company can be revised quietly, but a missed commitment from a regulator would be a public failure. By distancing itself from the date, RDW is signaling that any schedule for approving Full Self-Driving remains contingent on the outcome of its technical and legal review, not on Tesla’s public messaging.
How EU oversight of driver assistance differs from Tesla’s home turf
The clash with RDW also exposes a deeper structural issue for Tesla: the European Union regulates advanced driver assistance differently from the company’s home market. In Europe, systems that approach automated driving are scrutinized under a framework that emphasizes clear limits on what the technology can do and how it is marketed. That is particularly relevant for a product called Full Self-Driving, which, despite its name, still requires constant driver supervision and is treated as a driver assistance feature rather than a fully autonomous system.
Coverage of the dispute notes that Tesla’s software sits alongside its existing driver assistance system called Autopilot, which is already familiar to regulators and drivers. The difference is that Full Self-Driving promises a broader range of automated behaviors, which raises fresh questions about how it fits within EU rules that restrict hands-off or eyes-off driving. RDW’s insistence that it has not pre-approved the system suggests that European authorities intend to examine those questions in detail before allowing the software to operate on public roads at scale.
What the TechCrunch reporting reveals about the approval path
Reporting on the episode describes how Tesla claimed in its weekend post that the Dutch regulator RDW was set to approve the use of its driver assistance software in the European Union. That same coverage points out that the company framed the path to launch as a matter of time, not of principle, by tying it to a specific future approval. The story also notes that the software is positioned as an extension of Tesla’s existing driver assistance system called Autopilot, which is already deployed in many markets but operates under stricter constraints in Europe than in some other regions.
By highlighting the contrast between Tesla’s confident messaging and RDW’s more guarded stance, the reporting underscores how fragile the approval path really is. The suggestion that Full Self-Driving is on the verge of being cleared across the bloc depends heavily on the Dutch authority’s willingness to endorse the system, since RDW plays a central role in type approval for Tesla vehicles in the EU. If that authority is not ready to commit, then the idea of a smooth rollout across European markets becomes far less credible, regardless of how aggressively Tesla promotes its timeline in public.
Bloomberg’s account of RDW’s pushback
Another detailed account of the dispute explains that Tesla’s EU regulator has explicitly denied agreeing to approve Full Self-Driving, directly contradicting the company’s claim that a commitment was already in place. In that reporting, RDW is described as rejecting the notion that it has promised to grant Netherlands National approval in February, reinforcing the idea that any decision on the software will follow only after a full assessment. The story frames the disagreement as a significant setback for Tesla’s efforts to secure European acceptance of its most advanced driver assistance features.
The same coverage emphasizes that RDW’s role is not limited to the Netherlands but extends to Tesla’s broader European operations, since the authority is responsible for key approvals that affect how the company’s vehicles can be sold and updated across the bloc. By publicly distancing itself from Tesla’s timeline, RDW is not only correcting the record but also signaling to other European regulators that the process remains open and undecided. That stance makes it harder for Tesla to argue that European approval is a foregone conclusion and increases the pressure on the company to align its public statements with the realities of the regulatory process.
What this standoff means for Tesla, drivers, and rivals
The immediate consequence of RDW’s denial is uncertainty. Drivers in Europe who have been waiting for Full Self-Driving, and in some cases paying for it in advance, now face a more ambiguous timeline than Tesla’s social media post suggested. Investors who took the February 2026 date as a sign of regulatory momentum must now weigh the risk that the software could be delayed, restricted, or even blocked if it fails to meet European standards. The episode also gives rival carmakers an opening to argue that their own, more conservatively branded driver assistance systems are better aligned with EU expectations.
In the longer term, the standoff may reshape how Tesla communicates about regulation in markets where independent authorities are quick to challenge overconfident claims. By publicly contradicting the company, RDW has shown that it is willing to defend its process and its reputation, even when that means undercutting a high profile narrative about the future of automated driving. For Tesla, that is a reminder that winning the technology race is only half the battle. The other half is convincing regulators that the software is not just impressive, but also safe, transparent, and compatible with the rules that govern Europe’s roads.
More from MorningOverview