Showing 23,203 complaints for TESLA
Incident date: Jun 1, 2026
After disengaging Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) and taking manual control of the vehicle, a feedback popup appears on the center touchscreen asking the driver to select a reason for disengaging FSD. The popup does not automatically disappear and remains on the screen unless the driver interacts with it. I believe this creates an unnecessary driver-distraction risk. The moment immediately followi
... ng an FSD disengagement is precisely when the driver has resumed responsibility for manually controlling the vehicle and should be focused entirely on the road and surrounding traffic. Presenting a nonessential survey at that moment encourages the driver to look at and interact with the touchscreen. There should be an option to disable this feedback request, dismiss it without touchscreen interaction, or have it automatically disappear after a short period. I am reporting this because I believe requiring or encouraging touchscreen interaction immediately after transitioning from FSD to manual driving is a safety concern and should be reviewed.Read more
Incident date: Jun 1, 2026
After disengaging Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) and taking manual control of the vehicle, a feedback popup appears on the center touchscreen asking the driver to select a reason for disengaging FSD. The popup does not automatically disappear and remains on the screen unless the driver interacts with it. I believe this creates an unnecessary driver-distraction risk. The moment immediately followi
... ng an FSD disengagement is precisely when the driver has resumed responsibility for manually controlling the vehicle and should be focused entirely on the road and surrounding traffic. Presenting a nonessential survey at that moment encourages the driver to look at and interact with the touchscreen. There should be an option to disable this feedback request, dismiss it without touchscreen interaction, or have it automatically disappear after a short period. I am reporting this because I believe requiring or encouraging touchscreen interaction immediately after transitioning from FSD to manual driving is a safety concern and should be reviewed.Read more
Incident date: Jul 24, 2026
Description of the Safety Defect:My 2018 Tesla Model 3 AWD suffered an abrupt and catastrophic total loss of mechanical braking power while driving. The brake pedal went completely soft, and the vehicle lost hydraulic pressure.An independent mechanic inspected the undercarriage and confirmed that the factory steel hydraulic brake lines completely rusted through and ruptured, leaking all brake flui
... d from the system. This vehicle has 142,905 miles and has been operated in regions that use winter road salt.Tesla is aware of this severe corrosion defect under Service Bulletin SB-26-33-001, but they have categorized it as a service bulletin rather than a safety recall. A factory brake line rusting through to total fluid failure is an extreme and immediate safety hazard to occupants and the public. Furthermore, the vehicle simultaneously threw a "Front Motor Disconnected" warning. A federal investigation and mandatory recall are urgently required to ensure Tesla replaces these defective lines for all affected owners before a fatal accident occurs.Read more
Incident date: Jul 24, 2026
Description of the Safety Defect:My 2018 Tesla Model 3 AWD suffered an abrupt and catastrophic total loss of mechanical braking power while driving. The brake pedal went completely soft, and the vehicle lost hydraulic pressure.An independent mechanic inspected the undercarriage and confirmed that the factory steel hydraulic brake lines completely rusted through and ruptured, leaking all brake flui
... d from the system. This vehicle has 142,905 miles and has been operated in regions that use winter road salt.Tesla is aware of this severe corrosion defect under Service Bulletin SB-26-33-001, but they have categorized it as a service bulletin rather than a safety recall. A factory brake line rusting through to total fluid failure is an extreme and immediate safety hazard to occupants and the public. Furthermore, the vehicle simultaneously threw a "Front Motor Disconnected" warning. A federal investigation and mandatory recall are urgently required to ensure Tesla replaces these defective lines for all affected owners before a fatal accident occurs.Read more
Incident date: Aug 3, 2026
On August 3, 2026, my Tesla Model Y was traveling at approximately 50 mph with Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) engaged. At approximately 4:12:47 PM CDT, FSD became unavailable and then became available again. At 4:12:51.628 PM CDT, FSD was recorded as ACTIVE_FSD again. Approximately 2.36 seconds after FSD was re-engaged, at 4:12:53.987 PM CDT, the vehicle's steering began a sudden and rapid rightw
... ard movement. I did not turn the steering wheel or intentionally provide a rightward steering input that initiated this maneuver. The recorded steering angle increased rapidly from approximately +11.4° to +20.7°, +33.3°, +83.3°, +137.9°, +154.7°, and ultimately approximately +282° within about 1.6 seconds. Importantly, FSD was still recorded as ACTIVE_FSD when the steering movement began. FSD changed to UNAVAILABLE at approximately 4:12:54.364 PM CDT, about 0.38 seconds after the steering movement had already started. The steering continued to escalate after FSD became unavailable.The vehicle subsequently experienced severe lateral acceleration of approximately 0.96 g, and crash detection activated at approximately 4:12:55.710 PM CDT. The accelerator was recorded at 0% during the developing steering event and increased only after crash detection. Hard braking and ABS activation occurred afterward.I do not have Tesla Dashcam footage, but I have retained Tesla's vehicle telemetry export containing FSD state, steering, steering-torque, accelerator, braking, vehicle-speed, stability-control, and crash-event data.I am concerned that Tesla FSD may have initiated or contributed to the unexpected steering maneuver that resulted in the collision. I am certain that I did not initiate the sudden rightward steering maneuver.I request that NHTSA investigate whether this represents a potential safety defect or unexpected FSD behavior, particularly the sequence of FSD re-engagement followed approximately 2.36 seconds later by the unexpected steering event while FSD was still ACTIVE_FSDRead more
Crash
1 injured
Incident date: Aug 3, 2026
On August 3, 2026, my Tesla Model Y was traveling at approximately 50 mph with Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) engaged. At approximately 4:12:47 PM CDT, FSD became unavailable and then became available again. At 4:12:51.628 PM CDT, FSD was recorded as ACTIVE_FSD again. Approximately 2.36 seconds after FSD was re-engaged, at 4:12:53.987 PM CDT, the vehicle's steering began a sudden and rapid rightw
... ard movement. I did not turn the steering wheel or intentionally provide a rightward steering input that initiated this maneuver. The recorded steering angle increased rapidly from approximately +11.4° to +20.7°, +33.3°, +83.3°, +137.9°, +154.7°, and ultimately approximately +282° within about 1.6 seconds. Importantly, FSD was still recorded as ACTIVE_FSD when the steering movement began. FSD changed to UNAVAILABLE at approximately 4:12:54.364 PM CDT, about 0.38 seconds after the steering movement had already started. The steering continued to escalate after FSD became unavailable.The vehicle subsequently experienced severe lateral acceleration of approximately 0.96 g, and crash detection activated at approximately 4:12:55.710 PM CDT. The accelerator was recorded at 0% during the developing steering event and increased only after crash detection. Hard braking and ABS activation occurred afterward.I do not have Tesla Dashcam footage, but I have retained Tesla's vehicle telemetry export containing FSD state, steering, steering-torque, accelerator, braking, vehicle-speed, stability-control, and crash-event data.I am concerned that Tesla FSD may have initiated or contributed to the unexpected steering maneuver that resulted in the collision. I am certain that I did not initiate the sudden rightward steering maneuver.I request that NHTSA investigate whether this represents a potential safety defect or unexpected FSD behavior, particularly the sequence of FSD re-engagement followed approximately 2.36 seconds later by the unexpected steering event while FSD was still ACTIVE_FSDRead more
Crash
1 injured
Incident date: Aug 9, 2026
the suspension lower lateral links bushings are wearing down without much usage. my car had 31k miles and the bushings already need to be replaced. this is very dangerous.
Incident date: Jul 27, 2026
I am the owner of a 2022 Tesla Model 3. The front control arms on this vehicle are defective as manufactured. From the factory, these components have demonstrated premature failure, abnormal noise, loosening, and/or separation risk that is not consistent with normal wear on a low-mileage vehicle of this age. Symptoms experienced include [describe your exact symptoms clearly and factually — examp
... les: progressive clicking, clunking, popping, or creaking from the front suspension/wheel area; especially noticeable during low-speed turns, reverse, or over bumps; any feeling of looseness, pull, or change in handling; any actual detachment or near-detachment]. These symptoms began at approximately 75000 miles on July 27th 2026. This is not isolated wear. Front control-arm and related suspension-link failures (including lower lateral links that can detach from the subframe) have been the subject of multiple owner complaints, prior Tesla recalls (including NHTSA campaign 21V-835 for improperly torqued lateral-link fasteners on certain Model 3/Y vehicles and the later 23V-235 expansion), technical service bulletins addressing water intrusion and noise in upper control arms, and a current NHTSA preliminary evaluation (opened 2026) into front lower lateral-link detachment on a large population of Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. Owners report that failures can occur with little or no prior dashboard warning, only possible audible cues, and can render the vehicle undrivable or cause sudden changes in alignment and directional control. A sudden separation or failure of a front control arm/lateral link while the vehicle is in motion creates an unreasonable risk of loss of vehicle control, crash, or injury to the driver, passengers, and other road users. Because the condition appears to originate from factory assembly, design, or component durability issues rather than owner abuse or ordinary high-mileage wear, and because similar failures are widely reported across Tesla owners.Read more
Incident date: Jul 27, 2026
I am the owner of a 2022 Tesla Model 3. The front control arms on this vehicle are defective as manufactured. From the factory, these components have demonstrated premature failure, abnormal noise, loosening, and/or separation risk that is not consistent with normal wear on a low-mileage vehicle of this age. Symptoms experienced include [describe your exact symptoms clearly and factually — examp
... les: progressive clicking, clunking, popping, or creaking from the front suspension/wheel area; especially noticeable during low-speed turns, reverse, or over bumps; any feeling of looseness, pull, or change in handling; any actual detachment or near-detachment]. These symptoms began at approximately 75000 miles on July 27th 2026. This is not isolated wear. Front control-arm and related suspension-link failures (including lower lateral links that can detach from the subframe) have been the subject of multiple owner complaints, prior Tesla recalls (including NHTSA campaign 21V-835 for improperly torqued lateral-link fasteners on certain Model 3/Y vehicles and the later 23V-235 expansion), technical service bulletins addressing water intrusion and noise in upper control arms, and a current NHTSA preliminary evaluation (opened 2026) into front lower lateral-link detachment on a large population of Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. Owners report that failures can occur with little or no prior dashboard warning, only possible audible cues, and can render the vehicle undrivable or cause sudden changes in alignment and directional control. A sudden separation or failure of a front control arm/lateral link while the vehicle is in motion creates an unreasonable risk of loss of vehicle control, crash, or injury to the driver, passengers, and other road users. Because the condition appears to originate from factory assembly, design, or component durability issues rather than owner abuse or ordinary high-mileage wear, and because similar failures are widely reported across Tesla owners.Read more
Incident date: May 1, 2026
Component: Suspension: Front — lower lateral and compliance link assemblies; missing and backed-out lateral-link-to-subframe fasteners; torn bushings Beginning in XXX, the vehicle produced a reproducible knocking noise from the front end when reversing and turning at parking-lot speeds, with no dashboard warnings. Tesla Service ([XXX], invoice XXX) verified the noise and documented on the invoi
... ce that the cause was: 1. A front left lateral-link-to-subframe mounting bolt MISSING entirely; 2. A second lateral-link fastener significantly backed out; 3. Torn bushings in both front lower compliance links. The technician replaced both front lower lateral link assemblies and both front lower compliance link assemblies with new hardware (invoice line items: XXX lateral links; XXX and XXX compliance links). Total customer cost for the suspension work: $1,539, out of warranty; goodwill and defect coverage were denied in writing as "wear and tear." A structural fastener missing entirely from a primary front suspension link is not ordinary wear. It is the precursor condition to the lateral-link separation investigated under PE26006, which covers this vehicle by year and model. With one bolt absent and the second backed out at under 30,000 miles, this vehicle was effectively one fastener away from the detachment event the investigation documents. The contemporaneous torn bushings in both compliance links reinforce premature component failure, not age-related degradation. No crash, fire, or injury occurred, and the vehicle remained drivable. However, the failure occurred without warning on a safety-critical steering and suspension load path. Evidence retained by owner and referenced in this complaint: -Pre-repair inspection photographs & post-repair invoice INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: May 1, 2026
Component: Suspension: Front — lower lateral and compliance link assemblies; missing and backed-out lateral-link-to-subframe fasteners; torn bushings Beginning in XXX, the vehicle produced a reproducible knocking noise from the front end when reversing and turning at parking-lot speeds, with no dashboard warnings. Tesla Service ([XXX], invoice XXX) verified the noise and documented on the invoi
... ce that the cause was: 1. A front left lateral-link-to-subframe mounting bolt MISSING entirely; 2. A second lateral-link fastener significantly backed out; 3. Torn bushings in both front lower compliance links. The technician replaced both front lower lateral link assemblies and both front lower compliance link assemblies with new hardware (invoice line items: XXX lateral links; XXX and XXX compliance links). Total customer cost for the suspension work: $1,539, out of warranty; goodwill and defect coverage were denied in writing as "wear and tear." A structural fastener missing entirely from a primary front suspension link is not ordinary wear. It is the precursor condition to the lateral-link separation investigated under PE26006, which covers this vehicle by year and model. With one bolt absent and the second backed out at under 30,000 miles, this vehicle was effectively one fastener away from the detachment event the investigation documents. The contemporaneous torn bushings in both compliance links reinforce premature component failure, not age-related degradation. No crash, fire, or injury occurred, and the vehicle remained drivable. However, the failure occurred without warning on a safety-critical steering and suspension load path. Evidence retained by owner and referenced in this complaint: -Pre-repair inspection photographs & post-repair invoice INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: May 1, 2026
Component: Suspension: Front — lower lateral and compliance link assemblies; missing and backed-out lateral-link-to-subframe fasteners; torn bushings Beginning in XXX, the vehicle produced a reproducible knocking noise from the front end when reversing and turning at parking-lot speeds, with no dashboard warnings. Tesla Service ([XXX], invoice XXX) verified the noise and documented on the invoi
... ce that the cause was: 1. A front left lateral-link-to-subframe mounting bolt MISSING entirely; 2. A second lateral-link fastener significantly backed out; 3. Torn bushings in both front lower compliance links. The technician replaced both front lower lateral link assemblies and both front lower compliance link assemblies with new hardware (invoice line items: XXX lateral links; XXX and XXX compliance links). Total customer cost for the suspension work: $1,539, out of warranty; goodwill and defect coverage were denied in writing as "wear and tear." A structural fastener missing entirely from a primary front suspension link is not ordinary wear. It is the precursor condition to the lateral-link separation investigated under PE26006, which covers this vehicle by year and model. With one bolt absent and the second backed out at under 30,000 miles, this vehicle was effectively one fastener away from the detachment event the investigation documents. The contemporaneous torn bushings in both compliance links reinforce premature component failure, not age-related degradation. No crash, fire, or injury occurred, and the vehicle remained drivable. However, the failure occurred without warning on a safety-critical steering and suspension load path. Evidence retained by owner and referenced in this complaint: -Pre-repair inspection photographs & post-repair invoice INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Aug 12, 2026
Screen provides alert that "center brake light condition deteceted". Shows up as VCRIGHT_a487 Tesla said "The condition is characteristic of the current firmware with no current fix at this time". Tesla is looking into this concern as it is affecting multiple vehicles at this time
Incident date: Mar 11, 2026
I have a 2018 and a 2023 Tesla both with the same air bag failure warning, specifically Front Passenger Safety Restraint System Issue. Since this is a critical safety component of the car and Tesla appears to have a wide spread problem with this component, please look into this as possible recall situation.
Incident date: Aug 13, 2026
I was operating my Tesla using Full Self-Driving (Supervised) when the vehicle approached an active school zone with flashing warning lights and a posted school-zone speed limit of 35 mph. FSD did not appropriately respond to the active school zone or reduce the vehicle's speed to the posted 35 mph limit, requiring me to disengage FSD and manually slow the vehicle. The incident was captured on th
... e Tesla dashcam. The recording shows FSD active while approaching the school zone. At approximately 14 seconds into the recording, the vehicle was traveling approximately 52 mph with "Self-Driving" displayed while the flashing school-zone warning and SCHOOL pavement markings were visible ahead. The posted school-zone speed limit is 35 mph when the warning lights are flashing. Because FSD was not slowing the vehicle appropriately, I intervened and disengaged FSD. Immediately following my intervention, vehicle speed decreased from approximately 49 mph to 39 mph, 31 mph, and approximately 29 mph as I manually slowed the vehicle. This was the second time I experienced FSD failing to appropriately respond to this same active school zone. After this occurrence, I saved the dashcam recording and submitted a Bug Report through the vehicle. There were no warning messages indicating that FSD could not recognize or respond to the school zone. My safety concern is that FSD may proceed into an active school zone substantially above the posted school-zone speed limit unless the driver recognizes the failure and intervenes. The original dashcam recording is available and documents the vehicle speed, FSD status, active flashing school-zone warning, posted speed limit, and timing of my intervention.Read more
Incident date: Aug 13, 2026
I was operating my Tesla using Full Self-Driving (Supervised) when the vehicle approached an active school zone with flashing warning lights and a posted school-zone speed limit of 35 mph. FSD did not appropriately respond to the active school zone or reduce the vehicle's speed to the posted 35 mph limit, requiring me to disengage FSD and manually slow the vehicle. The incident was captured on th
... e Tesla dashcam. The recording shows FSD active while approaching the school zone. At approximately 14 seconds into the recording, the vehicle was traveling approximately 52 mph with "Self-Driving" displayed while the flashing school-zone warning and SCHOOL pavement markings were visible ahead. The posted school-zone speed limit is 35 mph when the warning lights are flashing. Because FSD was not slowing the vehicle appropriately, I intervened and disengaged FSD. Immediately following my intervention, vehicle speed decreased from approximately 49 mph to 39 mph, 31 mph, and approximately 29 mph as I manually slowed the vehicle. This was the second time I experienced FSD failing to appropriately respond to this same active school zone. After this occurrence, I saved the dashcam recording and submitted a Bug Report through the vehicle. There were no warning messages indicating that FSD could not recognize or respond to the school zone. My safety concern is that FSD may proceed into an active school zone substantially above the posted school-zone speed limit unless the driver recognizes the failure and intervenes. The original dashcam recording is available and documents the vehicle speed, FSD status, active flashing school-zone warning, posted speed limit, and timing of my intervention.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
Front Passenger Safety Restraint error This seems to be a faulty component on many Teslas and therefore is a design or manufacturing flaw. Several of my personal vehicles of different models and years have had the same issue so it's not just something that has worn out or been damaged by myself. As this involves the action of the airbag, it is an extreme safety concern and Tesla should recall t
... his part and replace. Also, in attempting a critical safety repair, I had to drive for weeks without an airbag before they would fix.Read more
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
I was using the Tesla FSD in stop and go traffic. At the moment I was moving with traffic at about 30 mph and then traffic started slowing down. The vehicle in front of me came to a complete stop. The FSD on my car started slowing down, but not fast enough. It rear-ended the vehicle at about 18 mph.
Crash
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
I was using the Tesla FSD in stop and go traffic. At the moment I was moving with traffic at about 30 mph and then traffic started slowing down. The vehicle in front of me came to a complete stop. The FSD on my car started slowing down, but not fast enough. It rear-ended the vehicle at about 18 mph.
Crash
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
To Whom It May Concern, I am logging a safety defect complaint regarding my 2019 Tesla Model 3, which displays active fault code RCM_a056 – Front passenger safety restraint system fault. This error deactivates the front passenger airbag and seatbelt pretensioners, creating an immediate, severe safety hazard. The Defect: The failure involves the Occupant Classification System (OCS) seat sensor an
... d affects passengers in two ways: 1. Children (Current Stage): The fault triggers primarily when a child sits in the front seat. The degraded sensor mat cannot process lighter weight accurately, throwing an "implausible voltage" error that disables the airbag system. 2. Adults (Advanced Stage): online data shows this same code eventually locks out for adults due to internal wiring harness fraying or sensor circuit failure. Manufacturer Response: Tesla is aware of this fleet-wide defect and issued Service Bulletin SB-23-20-002 to address it. However, because my vehicle is out of warranty, Tesla refuses to cover this critical safety repair. Service centers are quoting owners $1,300 to $1,500+ out-of-pocket to fix an inherent manufacturing flaw in a federally mandated safety system. I urge the NHTSA to investigate the 2019 Tesla Model 3 OCS system and compel Tesla to issue a safety recall to fix this hazard at no cost to consumers. Sincerely, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
To Whom It May Concern, I am logging a safety defect complaint regarding my 2019 Tesla Model 3, which displays active fault code RCM_a056 – Front passenger safety restraint system fault. This error deactivates the front passenger airbag and seatbelt pretensioners, creating an immediate, severe safety hazard. The Defect: The failure involves the Occupant Classification System (OCS) seat sensor an
... d affects passengers in two ways: 1. Children (Current Stage): The fault triggers primarily when a child sits in the front seat. The degraded sensor mat cannot process lighter weight accurately, throwing an "implausible voltage" error that disables the airbag system. 2. Adults (Advanced Stage): online data shows this same code eventually locks out for adults due to internal wiring harness fraying or sensor circuit failure. Manufacturer Response: Tesla is aware of this fleet-wide defect and issued Service Bulletin SB-23-20-002 to address it. However, because my vehicle is out of warranty, Tesla refuses to cover this critical safety repair. Service centers are quoting owners $1,300 to $1,500+ out-of-pocket to fix an inherent manufacturing flaw in a federally mandated safety system. I urge the NHTSA to investigate the 2019 Tesla Model 3 OCS system and compel Tesla to issue a safety recall to fix this hazard at no cost to consumers. Sincerely, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Aug 11, 2026
Tesla recently introduced auto parking as part of its FSD technology (Software 2026.20.6.11). Whenever we set the car destination to “home”, the auto parking has been able to gradually maneuver the car and self park in our garage. On 8/11, around 8:30pm, the car made a mistake during the auto parking. During the auto reverse into garage, the car came too close to the side of the garage and th
... e driver side mirror hit the wall and partially broke. The driver was monitoring the car. If the car has kept its angle, it would have made it through correctly. But looks like it miscalculated and in a fraction of a second, the car’s side mirror hit the garage wall. Given the “ park” feature is new, looks like it hasn’t been tested well. It should be recalled until it is fixed and impacted drivers should be compensated for their repairs.Read more
Incident date: Aug 5, 2026
When disengaging Full Self Driving (FSD), a feedback notification pops up on the bottom left corner of the infotainment screen that fully blocks the media control panel and does not disappear until the driver provides feedback to Tesla for why FSD was disengaged. By forcing the driver to answer the feedback question in order to access the media controls, Tesla causes a distraction to the driver,
... who is forced to take their eyes off the road and select a feedback response to why they chose to disengage FSD, increasing the chance of an accident. This is an intentional but dangerous design decision.Read more
Incident date: Aug 7, 2026
While driving my Tesla Model X on the interstate at highway speed, the vehicle began intermittently displaying false warnings that the trunk was open. This occurred multiple times during the drive and appears to have been caused by a malfunctioning trunk latch sensor. At the time, I was using Autosteer, part of Tesla’s Autopilot driver-assistance system. Each time the false trunk-open condition
... occurred, Autosteer immediately and unexpectedly disengaged. Under normal circumstances, when Autosteer disengages while I am driving, the vehicle provides an audible alert and a visual warning instructing the driver to take control immediately. During these incidents, neither warning occurred. There was no audible alert and no visual notification informing me that Autosteer had disengaged or that I needed to immediately resume steering. The system simply stopped providing automatic steering assistance. Because there was no warning that Autosteer had disengaged, I did not immediately realize that the vehicle was no longer maintaining its lane. The vehicle drifted into the adjacent lane before I recognized what had happened and regained control. Fortunately, there was no vehicle in the adjacent lane. Had another vehicle been present, this could have resulted in a collision. This occurred multiple times during the drive. The false trunk-open warning repeatedly caused Autosteer to disengage without the normal audible or visual disengagement warnings. My primary safety concern is not simply the malfunctioning trunk latch sensor. The safety concern is that a failure of an unrelated trunk latch sensor can cause Autosteer to suddenly disengage at highway speed without providing the driver with an audible or visual warning that automatic steering assistance has been lost. In my case, this failure mode resulted in an unintended lane departure. A relatively minor sensor malfunction should not be capable of causing an unannounced loss of automatic steering assistance.Read more
Incident date: Aug 7, 2026
While driving my Tesla Model X on the interstate at highway speed, the vehicle began intermittently displaying false warnings that the trunk was open. This occurred multiple times during the drive and appears to have been caused by a malfunctioning trunk latch sensor. At the time, I was using Autosteer, part of Tesla’s Autopilot driver-assistance system. Each time the false trunk-open condition
... occurred, Autosteer immediately and unexpectedly disengaged. Under normal circumstances, when Autosteer disengages while I am driving, the vehicle provides an audible alert and a visual warning instructing the driver to take control immediately. During these incidents, neither warning occurred. There was no audible alert and no visual notification informing me that Autosteer had disengaged or that I needed to immediately resume steering. The system simply stopped providing automatic steering assistance. Because there was no warning that Autosteer had disengaged, I did not immediately realize that the vehicle was no longer maintaining its lane. The vehicle drifted into the adjacent lane before I recognized what had happened and regained control. Fortunately, there was no vehicle in the adjacent lane. Had another vehicle been present, this could have resulted in a collision. This occurred multiple times during the drive. The false trunk-open warning repeatedly caused Autosteer to disengage without the normal audible or visual disengagement warnings. My primary safety concern is not simply the malfunctioning trunk latch sensor. The safety concern is that a failure of an unrelated trunk latch sensor can cause Autosteer to suddenly disengage at highway speed without providing the driver with an audible or visual warning that automatic steering assistance has been lost. In my case, this failure mode resulted in an unintended lane departure. A relatively minor sensor malfunction should not be capable of causing an unannounced loss of automatic steering assistance.Read more
Incident date: Aug 11, 2026
On 8/10/26, my Tesla experienced a complete low-voltage electrical failure while parked at my home. I owned the vehicle 34 days and put 1,054 miles on it after purchasing it directly from Tesla as a pre-owned vehicle. I entered the driver's seat, and closed the driver's door. The center touchscreen was completely black, the vehicle would not power on, and the Tesla mobile app could not control th
... e vehicle. I attempted to exit the vehicle, but the electronic driver's-door release would not operate. My husband was outside the vehicle and was also unable to open the driver's door from the exterior. The outside temperature was approximately 80 degrees, and the interior of the vehicle became increasingly warmer. For several minutes, we attempted to open the driver's door, lower a window, or restore power without success. I had not been shown or instructed on the location or operation of the manual emergency door release when Tesla delivered the vehicle. I ultimately had to climb over the center console to the passenger side and push the passenger door open with both feet. Tesla Roadside Assistance was contacted and the vehicle was towed to the Tesla Service Center. Tesla's 8/12/2026 service record documents the concern as "Parked vehicle unable to power on" and states that the technician found the 12V battery inoperative. Tesla replaced the 12V lead-acid battery assembly. During the same service visit, Tesla also replaced the left-front door glass and upper trim. Tesla separately verified that the passenger-side window had come out of its track and scratched the trim and documented that the cause was a loose and improperly seated front-right door trim panel. I received no warning on the vehicle display or through the Tesla app before the low-voltage battery failed. My primary safety concern is that loss of low-voltage power disabled the normal electronic means of exiting the driver's door while I was inside the vehicle, with no advance warning.Read more
Incident date: Aug 5, 2026
The contact owns a 2015 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view camera displayed an error message. In addition, the contact stated that the failure was a persistent failure. The dealer was made aware of the failure. The contact was informed that the parts were unavailable to repair the vehicle. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or deal
... er. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V695000 (Back Over Prevention); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 55,000.Read more
Incident date: Aug 7, 2026
I am submitting a complaint regarding the battery in my 2022 Subaru Outback. The original battery failed after only approximately 2½ years of normal use. This issue became a serious safety concern when my vehicle stopped at a traffic light at a very busy intersection and died. I was unable to safely move the vehicle and felt that I was in a dangerous situation because of the surrounding traffic.
... I was so concerned for my safety that I had to call 911 for assistance. After experiencing battery problems, it was determined that my Subaru Outback needed a larger, higher-capacity battery. This raises concerns that the original battery supplied with the vehicle may not have been adequate for the vehicle’s electrical demands. I do not believe a vehicle of this age should experience a battery-related failure that leaves the driver stranded in an active intersection and creates a potentially dangerous situation. I am requesting that Subaru issue a recall On model year 2022 Subaru Outback. Im requesting a reimburse for the costs I incurred as a result of replacing the original battery. Most importantly, I believe Subaru should address whether this battery issue presents a safety risk to other Subaru Outback owners, since a sudden loss of vehicle operation in traffic could potentially result in a serious accident. Unfortunately, the problem did not end there. Roughly a year and a half after the replacement battery was installed, I had to replace the battery again. Having multiple batteries fail within such a relatively short period of time makes me concerned that there may be an underlying issue with the vehicle’s electrical or charging system rather than simply a problem with the batteries themselves Thank you for your timeRead more
Incident date: Aug 7, 2026
I am writing to formally report a potential safety-related defect involving the front windshield of my 2025 Honda Pilot. The windshield has demonstrated what I believe to be an abnormal susceptibility to cracking and chipping under what appear to be normal driving conditions, including ordinary interstate highway travel. The damage has occurred from relatively minor road debris and/or without a si
... gnificant impact that would reasonably explain the severity or rapid progression of the cracking. I contacted Honda regarding this issue and requested assistance with the windshield repair/replacement as well as further investigation into whether there may be a defect involving the windshield glass, its installation, mounting, or related vehicle components. Honda declined to provide assistance or initiate any further investigation. My concern is not simply that windshield glass can occasionally be damaged by road debris. Rather, I am concerned that the windshield may be unusually susceptible to cracking under conditions that should reasonably be expected during normal operation of the vehicle. A windshield is a critical safety component, and repeated or unusually easy cracking could potentially affect driver visibility and the structural integrity of the windshield. I am also aware of other reported complaints involving windshield cracking on 2025 Honda Pilot vehicles. The existence of similar reports raises additional concern that this may not be an isolated incident and that the issue may warrant further investigation. I respectfully request that Honda: 1. Review the circumstances surrounding this windshield failure; 2. Determine whether similar windshield complaints have been reported for the 2025 Honda Pilot; 3. Investigate whether there may be a defect involving the windshield glass. Because the windshield is an essential safety component, I believe this matter deserves more than a determination that the damage is simply ordinary road debris.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
The contact owns a 2013 Dodge Journey. The contact stated that on several occasions while driving at various speeds, the air bag and ABS warning lights illuminated, and the cruise control feature became inoperable. The contact received notifications for Manufacturer Recalls: R61 and T47; and the vehicle was taken to a dealer where the air bag wiring harness and the ABS module water ingress were re
... placed; however, the failure reoccurred approximately five years later. The vehicle was taken to a different dealer but was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.Read more
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
My PTU/transfer case has failed and our Jeep is currently in the shop. They are stating that this exact issue is part of an ongoing recall and that our vehicle should also be added to the recall list due to this part being the exact reason for the recall. They told me that it is unsafe to drive due to power transfer failure while driving, and potential vehicle rollaway. The problem initially was s
... evere grinding noises noted while driving and it was confirmed by our mechanic at our local dealership. He then inspected the unit and noted the failure. I received no warning messages on my vehicle dash prior to this issue. The grinding has been ongoing for about 6 months to a year prior to this but was much less and I kept being told it was either the tires rubbing whilst turning or that my 4WD was "just having a hard time" by other mechanics which I now know was not the case). Please consider my vehicle to be added to this recall. This fix is entirely too expensive for a mom of two young kids, in the state of this economy, who needs their car back as soon as possible.Read more
Incident date: Jul 30, 2026
THERE IS A SEAT BELT RECALL AND 3 OTHER RECALLS THAT FORD CORP OFFICE AND THE DEALERSHIP IN HENDERSON NC TOLD ME THE PARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL 2027 AND I AM EXPECTED TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE PLEASE HELP ME
Incident date: Jul 15, 2026
I was driving my 2019 Chevy Silverado TrailBoss with 81,000 miles at 65MPH on I-80 East in Omaha, NE, when 3 warning lights came on. The first was the Service Parking Brake. The second was Service ESC. The final was a flashing Check Engine light. My truck started backfiring/misfiring, making a loud ticking noise, and running extremely rough. I was trying to merge off the interstate, but it was
... running so rough that it made it very difficult to do so safely. Eventually, I just had to finish going where I was headed and park it in the lot. I did some research and called my local shop. They said to stop driving immediately and have it towed to them for inspection. They used a diagnostic tool and diagnosed the issue as a DFM lifter failure. But they could not fix it there and recommended I take it to a different shop. I had it towed again, and they did their own diagnostics and have the same idea, but without taking the engine completely apart, they can't tell for sure. They want to charge me $1,250.00 to inspect it further. I called the dealer where I purchased the truck back in 2019 and am working with them on next steps. The last shop quoted me $7,800 repair if it is indeed the DFM lifters. Based on what I know, this is a known issue with these trucks. GM has an "Out of Warranty Policy Assistance" in place just for these know lifter issues. This is very concerning that GM hasn't done a recall on these parts as it has shown to be a safety issue when driving the vehicle in traffic on the interstate. I just hope that GM assists me with the repair costs because it is not guaranteed and I cannot afford $7,800 right now.Read more
Incident date: Aug 12, 2026
The contact owns a 2025 Acura MDX. The contact stated that while the vehicle was stopped at a stoplight, the START/STOP system failed to operate as designed and the vehicle turned off unintendedly. The vehicle was restarted to continue driving. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who replaced the starter and battery, and other unknown parts were also replaced. The failure reoccurred once while id
... ling in stop-and-go traffic on the highway. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was opened. The failure mileage was approximately 11,000.Read more
Incident date: Aug 12, 2026
Car is less than a year old and forward camera is reporting visibility problem. Safety features, forward collision and autonomous driving is severely degraded. Tesla will not repair under warranty which requires disassembly of the camera housing. Front camera housing has been redesigned by Tesla but they are not retrofitting this fix for existing Model Y and have not issues a safety recall. This c
... amera housing defect presents a risk to my safely and the safety of others.Read more
Incident date: Aug 12, 2026
Car is less than a year old and forward camera is reporting visibility problem. Safety features, forward collision and autonomous driving is severely degraded. Tesla will not repair under warranty which requires disassembly of the camera housing. Front camera housing has been redesigned by Tesla but they are not retrofitting this fix for existing Model Y and have not issues a safety recall. This c
... amera housing defect presents a risk to my safely and the safety of others.Read more
Incident date: Aug 9, 2026
The contact owns a 2021 Tesla Model S. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds with the cruise control feature engaged, the brakes independently activated without the brake pedal being depressed. No warning light was illuminated. The local dealer was contacted; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage wa
... s approximately 65,000.Read more
Incident date: Aug 9, 2026
The contact owns a 2021 Tesla Model S. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds with the cruise control feature engaged, the brakes independently activated without the brake pedal being depressed. No warning light was illuminated. The local dealer was contacted; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage wa
... s approximately 65,000.Read more
Incident date: Aug 9, 2026
I was stopped at a stop sign and my 2025 Honda Odyssey shut off. I stopped the AIS engaged, then when I took my foot off the brake the engine didn't engage. The car wouldn't move. I took me about 30 seconds to get the mini van's engine to engage. This is the second time this type of incident has happened.
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
UA8OF transmission went. Vehicle was making whining noise when purchased and was told was normal. Driving the car as normal when traveling through intersection when car would not drive.
Incident date: Aug 11, 2026
In September 2025, the manufacturer issued a component specific extended limited warranty(MINI ELW FRM 15Y/186M)acknowledging the Footwell Module (FRM) may fail after a 12-volt battery disconnect or power supply interruption. My vehicle was identified by VIN as affected. Beginning in 2021, my vehicle experienced recurring electrical failures consistent with FRM failure: three battery replacements
... (2021, May 2024, December 2024), alternator failure (May 2024), windows failing to operate, erratic indicator lights, and engine rev on startup with momentary loss of vehicle control. Three separate mechanics examined the vehicle at different points. None could diagnose the cause because the FRM interfaces with the manufacturer’s proprietary diagnostic system, making the defect undetectable without dealer-specific equipment.On December 18, 2024, the vehicle broke down on the shoulder of I-75 near Exit 278 outside Atlanta, GA. I walked approximately 1.5 miles along the interstate to the nearest exit with a steep drop on one side and high-speed truck traffic on the other. The vehicle was impounded. I was stranded overnight, more than 7 hours from home.The vehicle has been inoperable since December 18, 2024. After receiving the warranty letter, I contacted my local authorized MINI dealer to schedule the covered repair. The service manager refused, demanded a $300 diagnostic fee, and stated they would only replace the module. I escalated to the manufacturer’s executive offices. The executive customer care office refused to arrange towing, waive diagnostic fees, or repair damage beyond the module. The manufacturer has effectively refused to honor its own warranty extension. Full documentation available including the warranty letter, timestamped photos from the interstate, mechanic records, and all manufacturer correspondenceRead more
Incident date: Jun 1, 2026
Dear Hyundai Motor America Consumer Affairs, My name is [XXX], and I am submitting this correspondence as a formal safety and customer-service complaint concerning my 2023 Hyundai Kona SEL, the recurring failure of its horn, and the treatment I received at Capitol Hyundai in San Jose, California. I am requesting that Hyundai Motor America immediately open a corporate case, investigate the dealersh
... ip’s handling of this matter, preserve all relevant records, and provide me with a written resolution. This complaint involves an unresolved vehicle safety concern. My vehicle’s horn has failed repeatedly. I previously presented the vehicle to Hyundai for this same horn issue in 2024. One of those visits was properly documented. I subsequently returned regarding the horn again, and the horn was made operational; however, to the best of my knowledge, that subsequent visit and/or work was not properly documented in my service history. The horn has now failed again. A functioning horn is an important vehicle safety device. Without it, I cannot reliably warn another driver, cyclist, pedestrian, or other road user when immediate warning may be necessary to avoid a collision. On August 11, 2026, I brought my vehicle to Capitol Hyundai, 1050 Capitol Expressway Auto Mall, San Jose, CA 95136, seeking assistance with this recurring problem. What occurred is particularly concerning because Capitol Hyundai’s own Repair Order documents the situation. The Repair Order states: “CUSTOMER STATES HORN IS NOT WORKING PLEASE CHECK AND ADVISE” and also states: “DEALERSHIP IS REFUSING TO SERVICE CLIENT DUE TO CUSTOMER ISSUE.” I am attaching a copy of this Repair Order. Therefore, there should be no dispute that Capitol Hyundai had actual written notice on [XXX] that I reported an inoperative horn and that the dealership documented its refusal to service me. Instead of resolving the safety concern, I left without the horn being repaired. I was also told that the dealership would INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTRead more
Incident date: Aug 9, 2026
The contact owns a 1996 Carriage Carri-Lite Cashay RV equipped with Goodyear Tires, Tire Line: Marathon 528RKS, Tire Size: ST225/85 /R16, DOT Number: [XXX]. The contact stated that while the RV was parked, the front driver’s tire tread had separated, with the coils and pieces of tread coming off the tire. The tire was not replaced. The dealer was not contacted. The tire was a replacement tire. T
... he manufacturer was notified of the failure. The RV and tire failure mileages were unknown. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Apr 5, 2026
The contact owns a 2024 Alliance Paradigm RV. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V324000 (EQUIPMENT); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted, and it was confirmed that the part was not yet available. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufac
... turer was made aware of the issue. The contact had not experienced a failure.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
Defect Summary: Front suspension lower lateral link bolt backing out / stripped internal subframe weld-nut threads. Incident Description: While driving, the vehicle developed front-end suspension instability / clunking. Upon inspection by Tesla Service, technicians determined that the lateral link attachment bolt stripped the internal subframe threads, requiring a complete $4,599 subframe assembl
... y replacement. Safety Risk: Lateral link bolt separation causes a complete loss of suspension alignment and wheel control without prior warning or dashboard alerts, creating an immediate crash hazard at highway speeds. Manufacturer Response: The defect manifested immediately prior to logging the ticket at 20 miles past the Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty limit). Tesla refused warranty coverage, treating a known structural fastener defect as customer wear-and-tear and demanding $4,599 for subframe replacement.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
On August 10, 2026, I was driving my 2018 Ford Fusion at approximately 40 mph under normal driving conditions when, without warning, the hood unexpectedly released and flew completely backward into the windshield. The hood had been closed prior to driving and there was no warning before the failure. The hood struck the windshield with significant force, shattering it, immediately blocking my forw
... ard visibility, and sending broken glass into the passenger compartment and onto me. Because I suddenly could not see the roadway, I lost control and the vehicle left the road. Fortunately, no other vehicles or pedestrians were involved and I did not require medical treatment. This was not a hood that simply became loose or partially opened. The hood fully opened and struck the windshield. Based on what occurred, it appears the primary hood retention/latch and the secondary safety retention mechanism both failed to prevent the hood from fully opening. The exact mechanical cause requires inspection. The impact caused extensive damage to the hood and windshield and tore/deformed metal around the windshield/A-pillar/roof area. An independent eyewitness across the street personally witnessed the incident occur in real time, and I have photographs documenting the aftermath. The vehicle has approximately 156,000 miles, was in good operating condition, and remains unrepaired and unaltered following the incident so the hood latch, secondary safety catch, striker, hinges and related components can be inspected. Ford was notified immediately and opened case CXH-08862363-V8C8X7, which Ford advised was escalated to its Office of General Counsel. I am reporting this because this apparent hood-retention safety failure created an extremely dangerous situation. Had this occurred at highway speed, at a higher speed, in heavy traffic, or near pedestrians, the consequences could have been catastrophic.Read more
Crash
1 injured
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
The power steering on my car stopped working entirely right after startup and would not return after multiple restarts. The dealership has replaced the steering torque sensor but the problem returned less than a month later. Without power steering, the car is not safe to drive.
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
MY PICKUP HAS THE 10R80 TRANSMISSION. IT CURRENTLY SLIPS IN LOWER GEARS AND SOMETIMES NO 10TH GEAR
Incident date: Nov 25, 2019
While driving, my vehicle began shaking/rough running and the check-engine light came on. Multiple warning lights and system warnings appeared on the dashboard, including the brake system, steering, traction control, and TPMS warnings. The vehicle experienced noticeable shaking and reduced/abnormal performance. I am concerned that this may be a safety-related defect because multiple vehicle system
... s are being affected.Read more
Incident date: Nov 25, 2019
While driving, my vehicle began shaking/rough running and the check-engine light came on. Multiple warning lights and system warnings appeared on the dashboard, including the brake system, steering, traction control, and TPMS warnings. The vehicle experienced noticeable shaking and reduced/abnormal performance. I am concerned that this may be a safety-related defect because multiple vehicle system
... s are being affected.Read more