Tesla is under growing regulatory and expert scrutiny in Europe over its self-published safety statistics for the Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, with independent researchers and traffic safety groups questioning whether the company’s claims amount to misleading marketing as it seeks wider approval for the technology.
In correspondence obtained by Reuters through public records requests, Tesla presented its safety data to regulators in the Netherlands and Sweden as part of its push for FSD approval. The figures, which Tesla has increasingly highlighted in recent months, claim the system is up to 10 times safer than human drivers and could potentially save 32,000 lives and prevent 1.9 million injuries if widely adopted.
A Reuters examination last month identified several flaws in Tesla’s comparisons. The data relies on unrealistic assumptions, such as replacing every U.S. vehicle, including trucks and motorcycles, with an FSD-equipped Tesla, and compares crash rates involving airbag deployments in Teslas to far less severe accidents across all vehicles. Tesla’s fleet is also significantly newer, on average, than the typical U.S. car, which distorts safety comparisons because newer vehicles generally have more advanced safety features.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
Independent experts have been blunt. Dudley Curtis of the European Transport Safety Council said his organization is “certainly concerned” that Tesla presented “unreliable safety data” from the United States. He added that if Tesla wants to make safety claims, it should submit the data for independent verification by qualified researchers.
The issue is sensitive as Tesla seeks to regain lost ground in Europe, where sales have plummeted amid backlash over CEO Elon Musk’s political activities and embrace of far-right parties. FSD approval is seen as critical for a sales rebound, especially as Chinese EV makers continue to gain market share.
The Netherlands’ RDW road regulator approved FSD for domestic use in April after more than a year of testing and discussions. It is now seeking EU-wide approval on Tesla’s behalf. RDW said it does not rely on marketing claims or external statistics but performs its own tests, analyses, and verifications. The agency did not specify whether it assessed Tesla’s U.S. safety statistics.
In Sweden, Tesla policy manager Ivan Komusanac wrote to regulators in April, attaching a presentation with the disputed claims. Swedish Transport Agency investigator Anders Eriksson declined to comment on the specific data but said regulators “look beyond headline figures” and would not base assessments solely on aggregated safety claims.
In Greece, regulators cited data “from the other side of the Atlantic” showing a “very significant drop in accidents” when announcing plans to approve FSD. The Greek transport ministry did not respond to questions about whether it relied on Tesla’s report.
Norwegian regulators have received multiple emails from Tesla enthusiasts citing the company’s safety figures. Stein-Helge Mundal of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration responded that Tesla’s data is “self-produced,” making correlation with official statistics difficult.
The Netherlands and Sweden approvals are part of a broader EU process. Representatives of 55% of member states representing 65% of the bloc’s population must vote yes for EU-wide approval. Individual countries can approve the system domestically in the meantime.
Tesla charges a monthly subscription for FSD, which can drive itself under certain conditions but still requires driver attention. The company argues the system leads to safer roads with increased usage. However, critics say the marketing overstates benefits and underplays limitations, particularly in complex European driving environments with narrower roads, cyclists, and pedestrians.
The controversy is part of growing global tension around self-reported safety data for autonomous systems. As AI-driven driver assistance features advance, regulators are under pressure to balance innovation with public safety. Europe has been more cautious than the U.S., with stricter testing and transparency requirements.
The case also highlights challenges in verifying claims for rapidly evolving technology. Independent researchers say Tesla’s methodology makes it difficult to draw apples-to-apples comparisons, potentially overstating benefits while minimizing real-world risks.
For Tesla, European approval is strategically important. The region was once a bright spot for the company, but has become more challenging amid competition from Chinese manufacturers and reputational issues tied to Musk. Strong FSD performance could help differentiate Tesla vehicles and support a recovery in sales.
Yet the reliance on self-published data risks eroding trust if discrepancies emerge. European regulators have shown willingness to conduct their own testing, which may provide a more robust assessment than U.S.-based statistics alone.