Aug 6 (Reuters) – Four months ago, the Netherlands approved Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and has since then advocated for its adoption across the EU.
But Dutch road regulator RDW won’t tell the public why it concluded the driver-assistance system is safe or how it evaluated the technology, which for years has faced regulatory investigations and lawsuits over FSD-involved crashes in the United States.
Releasing such details would violate Tesla’s commercial secrets, the regulator told Reuters, echoing the automaker’s own demands on the regulator for confidentiality. Since late 2024, Tesla has pressed RDW to keep documentation about the FSD safety review secret, according to previously unreported email correspondence between the Dutch regulator and Tesla, obtained by Reuters through a public-records request.
Tesla has called FSD approval key to boosting sales in Europe, where it’s trying to regain market share lost in recent years and faces fierce competition from Chinese EVs.
European regulators have historically been more cautious about automated driving than the United States, requiring automakers to get approval before deploying driver-assistance systems such as FSD.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly said FSD, which requires a human driver to pay strict attention, will soon be fully autonomous. A Reuters investigation in May found that Tesla’s self-published FSD safety statistics are highly exaggerated and the company is nowhere near releasing self-driving technology at scale.
Reuters reported in June that Tesla had shared inflated FSD-safety data from the United States with several EU regulators including RDW as it sought approval. RDW said it did not rely on Tesla’s statistics and did its own “extensive testing” on closed tracks and public roads, in various conditions, without specifying how it measured performance or safety.
European vehicle-safety law experts say RDW is withholding far too much information under the guise of trade secrets, potentially at the expense of public safety. Details on RDW’s testing and Tesla’s performance are matters of broad public interest, said Oliver Carsten, a transportation-safety professor at the University of Leeds who has been involved in crafting European automated-driving regulations.
“I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be public,” he said.
Frank Mutze, policy and project manager for the advocacy group European Transport Safety Council, said the public is left to trust that authorities “have done their homework, which of course isn’t good enough for us.”
RDW declined to say how it evaluated FSD safety testing or to release documents on the testing, citing an “obligation to protect manufacturer-specific information.” The agency did not explain how details of its testing or conclusions about the system’s performance could reveal commercially sensitive information.
Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.
TESLA DEMANDS FOR SECRECY
RDW announced in April that it had concluded FSD is “safer than other driver assistance systems.” In June, RDW said it is “at least as safe as other driver assistance systems.” The agency offered no data or evidence supporting those statements.
RDW is now seeking EU approval for FSD, which requires a “yes” vote from representatives of 55% of member states that make up 65% of the bloc’s population. A vote could happen in October.
Tesla made secrecy a priority throughout its application, according to correspondence between the automaker and the regulator beginning in late 2024.
In one example from April 2025, a Tesla representative sought to confirm RDW would “never” release a particular document and asked how it would ensure it was “withheld from public disclosure.” Tesla, the employee said, could not provide more information to RDW “until this matter is clarified.”
RDW told Tesla that disclosure under public records law shouldn’t be a problem because “manufacturers always have the option to request an exemption from disclosing certain information.”
RDW told Reuters it has not withheld information at Tesla’s request but rather makes its own decisions on how to protect company trade secrets.
Tesla has a history of trying to shield information it gives regulators from public view. In the United States, it petitions federal safety regulators to redact basic details about every crash involving its driver-assistance systems.
Other European regulators, who are getting some unspecified FSD testing information from RDW, have taken a similar line on confidentiality. Regulators in six European countries including Germany, Norway and Denmark all told Reuters they could not release data on FSD testing or performance because of concerns about trade secrets. The Norwegian Public Roads Administration said it had reviewed data the Dutch provided on its assessment of FSD and that the data “is not the same as what Tesla publishes on its website,” referring to the inflated safety statistics examined in the Reuters investigation.
Tesla’s statistics claim the vehicles are safer than what’s documented in the data European regulators are reviewing, the Norwegian agency has told drivers in emails reviewed by Reuters.
European traffic-safety experts said that regulators’ insistence on confidentiality is particularly concerning given the unorthodox way Tesla is seeking FSD approval. Tesla is pursuing a special exemption from EU motor-vehicle regulations, which currently only allow hands-free automated driving systems like FSD to operate on highways and prohibit their use on more congested urban roads.
Some regulators have provided clues about their concerns. France’s transportation minister last month said the country would not approve FSD in its current form because of concerns about speeding and insufficient technology to ensure the human driver is paying attention.
Finland’s Transport and Communications Agency said the system “has been observed to often make safer decisions than a human driver” but also highlighted concerns about its operation on steep, windy roads and questioned whether drivers could safely retake control if the system makes sudden mistakes.
(Reporting by Chris Kirkham and Marie Mannes; additional reporting from Toby Sterling, Christina Amann, Gilles Gillaume and Stine Jacobsen; editing by Mike Colias and Brian Thevenot. )
Comments