Tesla Ordered By China To Fix Crash Risk In 1.1 Million Vehicles

There is “braking” news about Tesla regarding a potentially accelerating experience. Various news outlets, such as the New York Times, the Associated Press, and Bloomberg News, have reported that China’s safety regulator has ordered Tesla to recall 1.1 million vehicles, including several Tesla models imported into China—the Models S, X and 3—as well as two models made in China— the Models Y and 3. The problem is that these models that were manufactured from January 12, 2019 through April 24, 2023, may not provide drivers adequate warning when they step on the accelerator pedal too hard or for too long. And, in this case, long and hard are not good because putting your foot down in such a manner could lead to a crash. Tesla reportedly will begin addressing this problem on May 29 via an online, wireless software update.

Now, apparently Elon Musk, who owns both Tesla and Twitter, has taken issue with use of the word “recall” in this situation. Someone attached a Twitter Community Note to a Bloomberg News tweet of one of its articles entitled “Tesla Recalls Virtually Every Car It Has Sold in China.” The Community Note argued that “The title of the article is misleading, as the ‘recall’ is an over-the-air software update, meaning it is not a physical recall.” Sawyer Merritt, who identifies as a Tesla investor in his Twitter bio and thus kind of has an incentive to see Tesla stock do well, tweet-posted this Community Note along with, “Community notes for the win again!” Musk then tweet-responded to Merritt’s post with “When will they learn…sigh,” as you can see here:

Is this a “I saw the sigh and it opened up my eyes” situation? Or is questioning the use of the word “recall” here simply a splitting hairs semantic argument?

In other words, how much actual merit did Merritt’s post have? Was use of the word “recall” in this Tesla case really unmerited? Let’s take a look at how Dictionary.com defines the word “recall” to decide. If you recall, the word “recall” has multiple types of definitions, most of which don’t apply in this situation. For example, “the ability to remember or act of remembering” probably isn’t the right definition here since China’s regulators would have no real reason to issue a formal call to, “Remember your Teslas.” The most appropriate definition seems to “a summons by a manufacturer or other agency for the return of goods or a product already shipped to market or sold to consumers but discovered to be defective, contaminated, unsafe, or the like.”

Did an agency find the Tesla models to be defective, contaminated, unsafe, or the like? Yes. Did the agency issue a summons or an order? Yes. Therefore, what’s happening here is much more than just, “Oh, Tesla decided to issue a software update.” This isn’t like those routine Windows or Apple iPhone updates that you get periodically. Rather Tesla is issuing a software update because an agency told them to do something about the crash risk of their cars, which in turn would be a significant health risk. So, once again, the question is whether arguing against using the word “recall” here is nothing more than hair-splitting?

This hairy issue is likely to come up more and more in the coming years as an increasing number of potentially life-threatening products depend more heavily on computer software and algorithms to function properly. Historically, the words “requires software update” may have had a softer connotation than “product recall.” The distinction previously has been that we’ve been less dependent health-wise on software updates. When you choose, “Update Later” for your iPhone, your iPhone is not going to immediately smack you in the face. By contrast, software glitches can pose a much more immediate and urgent health risk to not only the driver but also the passengers and other drivers and pedestrians on the road when it can affect the braking and accelerating of a vehicle.

This certainly wasn’t the first time that regulators have pointed out issues with Tesla cars. Jenny Gross and Claire Fu mentioned other issues in their article for The New York Times. Earlier this year, China’s regulators indicated that the hoods of certain imported Model S vehicles could open while the car was moving. Also, earlier this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that Tesla’s Full Self Driving driver-assistance system could increase the risk of accidents by allowing vehicles to exceed legal speed limits and bust through intersections in what they described as “an unlawful or unpredictable manner.” Additionally, Tesla is facing lawsuits from drivers complaining about Tesla’s self-driving software.

It’s not yet clear how this “recall” ordered by China’s safety regulators—or whatever Musk and Tesla investors want to call it—will affect Teslas other countries such as the U.S. and whether these same software glitches are present in Tesla vehicles sold in other countries. China is clearly an important market for Tesla since revenues from that country exceeded $18 billion last year and, as they say, money talks.