As it seeks broader acceptance of its driver-assistance software in Europe, Tesla has supplied self-published safety figures to regulators in the Netherlands and Sweden that independent traffic-safety researchers say are prone to misinterpretation and amount to misleading marketing.
An examination published last month found that company leaders have increasingly cited data asserting that the Full Self-Driving or FSD system is up to 10 times safer than a human driver. That review identified several comparisons and methodological choices behind Tesla's statistics that experts say overstate the system's safety.
Correspondence obtained through public records requests shows Tesla provided those same self-published metrics to some European regulators while pursuing formal approvals for FSD in the region. In late 2024 the company opened the approval process with RDW, the Dutch road regulator, and in a November 2024 letter supplied a link to a safety report that included a statement asserting that "increased usage" of FSD "leads to safer roads."
Tesla markets FSD as a subscription product. The system can control driving in certain scenarios but requires the human driver to remain attentive and ready to intervene. After more than a year of testing and discussions with the automaker, the Dutch regulator in April approved the system for use within the Netherlands and is now pursuing EU-wide authorization on Tesla's behalf.
Regulatory responses and data handling
RDW declined to address the specific concerns about Tesla's safety statistics raised by independent reviewers, but the agency said it does not base decisions on marketing claims or external statistics alone. Instead, RDW stated it conducts its own testing, analyses and verifications on public roads and at test tracks. The agency would not say whether it had assessed the U.S.-origin safety metrics Tesla included in its submissions.
RDW told regulators that Tesla had "collected a lot of data" as part of testing and that the agency had validated, tested and audited those materials. The Dutch regulator did not specify what types of data Tesla provided, or what metrics were measured during the testing program. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment on these matters.
Claims challenged in correspondence with Swedish authorities
Soon after the Dutch approval announcement on April 10, a Tesla policy manager contacted Swedish regulators requesting a similar sign-off. The message included a slide deck that presented a claim that FSD-equipped Teslas travel more than seven times farther between crashes than the average U.S. human driver. The same material asserted that FSD could have potentially saved 32,000 lives and prevented 1.9 million injuries.
Independent researchers who reviewed those figures said the numbers are highly misleading because they rest on an unrealistic baseline assumption: that every vehicle in the United States, from heavy freight trucks to motorcycles that statistically have high crash rates, would be replaced by an FSD-enabled Tesla, and that every Tesla would be at least seven times safer than the vehicle it replaced.
The examination also flagged how Tesla calculated its crash rates. The company compares a crash rate for FSD-piloted Teslas that counts incidents triggering airbag deployments to a general U.S. crash rate across all vehicles that includes many less severe accidents. By using the airbag-deployment threshold for its own cars while comparing it to a broader, more inclusive crash statistic, the company makes an uneven comparison that researchers say inflates apparent safety benefits.
Another concern is the choice of comparator. Tesla contrasts its vehicles with the average U.S. vehicle fleet, which is on average older than the Tesla fleet. Because automakers have progressively introduced safety technologies over time, comparing newer Teslas to a generally older national fleet can distort the magnitude of any safety advantage.
How Swedish and other European regulators reacted
An investigator at the Swedish Transport Agency declined to comment on Tesla's specific data submission, but emphasized that Swedish regulators examine more than headline statistics. The investigator noted that any assessment of such a system would be based on the totality of evidence presented, rather than aggregated safety claims alone. The agency did not answer questions about what additional evidence Tesla supplied.
The European Transport Safety Council expressed concern after being informed about the correspondence showing Tesla had provided U.S.-based safety data to Swedish authorities. A spokesperson said the organization is worried that the data may be unreliable when presented without independent verification. The spokesperson recommended that if Tesla intends to make broad safety claims, the company should provide the underlying data to an academic institution or have it independently examined by qualified researchers before using it to support regulatory or public-safety assertions.
Commercial stakes and the path to EU acceptance
Tesla has publicly stated that gaining approval for FSD in Europe is an important element of the company’s plans for vehicle sales growth in the region. The automaker is attempting to rebuild market momentum after sales declined last year, in part amid controversies tied to high-profile political activity by company leadership.
If Tesla cannot secure regulatory acceptance across the bloc, the company may face additional headwinds as other automakers, including growing entrants from China, expand their presence in European markets. For the FSD system to be authorized across the European Union, representatives of member states representing at least 55 percent of the countries and 65 percent of the bloc’s population must approve it. Until a bloc-wide decision is reached, individual member states retain the ability to authorize the technology on a national basis.
For example, a regulator in Greece said last month that the country aims to approve FSD and cited data "from the other side of the Atlantic" indicating a marked reduction in accidents when such systems are used. The Greek transport ministry did not confirm whether the data it referenced came from Tesla's own safety report.
Emails reviewed by regulators show that authorities in several European countries have been inundated with messages from drivers citing Tesla's safety statistics and urging speedy approval. Last autumn several Tesla owners contacted Norwegian road authorities referencing the automaker's vehicle safety report. One correspondent wrote that the technology was "significantly safer than average manual driving" and could potentially cut traffic accidents by up to 90 percent. A representative of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration responded by noting that Tesla's figures are self-produced, which complicates efforts to correlate them with the authority’s own accident records.
Implications for regulators, industry and motorists
Regulators now face the task of weighing manufacturer-supplied data alongside independently generated evidence and their own on-road testing. While some national agencies appear willing to consider Tesla's submissions, others and outside experts argue that a higher standard of independent verification is necessary before sweeping safety claims can inform regulatory decisions.
For industry stakeholders and investors, the outcome of the EU approval process carries commercial consequences for Tesla's competitiveness in Europe and could influence broader market dynamics among electric vehicle makers. For motorists and public-safety officials, the accuracy and comparability of safety data are central to assessing whether advanced driver-assistance systems reduce crashes and injuries on a population scale.
At present, regulators and independent researchers continue to debate the validity of the figures Tesla has advanced. The company has not provided a public response to questions about the matter.