What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Yes, according to Reuters’ review of correspondence between Tesla and the Dutch vehicle regulator, RDW. The emails reportedly show Tesla pressing for a faster test start and objecting to parts of the regulator’s testing, software-update review and costs. They also show RDW accommodating some requests. The public record does not establish that this pressure changed the approval outcome, and RDW says its assessment remained independent.
What did the leaked emails show?
Reuters reviewed hundreds of pages of correspondence between Tesla and regulators in seven European countries, obtained through public-records requests. The Dutch exchanges were partly redacted, including names and substantial passages, so the public account cannot reconstruct every discussion or its full context. Electrek’s October 8, 2026 summary of the Reuters investigation describes several points of friction during RDW’s review of “Full Self-Driving (Supervised).”
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
HOMETALL Remote Control Car RC Trucks All Terrain 2WD RC Truck Toy RC Cars | $19.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A push to begin testing
In November 2024, a Tesla representative urged RDW to start vehicle tests by the end of that month. The representative wrote: “Keep in mind that this is mission critical for our leadership. Our leadership will measure the goodwill to do this project with RDW by this ‘test start’ milestone.” The speaker’s name was not disclosed in the reporting.
Disagreements over testing and software updates
In December 2024, Tesla argued that its own test reports should be sufficient rather than having an RDW inspector witness tests. RDW proposed remotely monitoring part of the testing. In January 2025, Tesla questioned a meeting about over-the-air (OTA) software updates and offered to provide a written summary instead. An RDW staffer reportedly said the regulator did not want to “dive too deep in technical details” or “question the quality and process for OTA’s.”
#1 Best Overall
- ❄️ All-Weather Durable Body – Made with cold-resistant & impact-proof pvc materials, this boys pickup toy truck is perfect for winter play and holiday gifts!
- 🔋 2 Rechargeable Batteries + Extra Charging Cables – Remote control car can Enjoy up to 1 hour of playtime without frequent battery swaps. (Includes 2x 400mAh batteries + 2 USB cables for convenience!)
- ⚡ High-Speed RC Trucks Thrills (18 KM/H!) – Front-wheel drive for stable racing fun, ideal for kids aged 3+ to compete safely.
- 💡 Cool Adjustable LED Lights – This rc cars for kids is customize multicolor light modes and unique design for an epic nighttime driving experience!
- 👶 Kid-Friendly Ergonomic Remote – Designed for small hands with a comfortable grip, making steering easy & fun!
The €365,000 invoice dispute
In April 2025, Tesla disputed an RDW invoice for €365,000 covering five months of work, calling the amount “extremely high” and saying it would withhold payment pending a more detailed accounting. Tesla also objected to paying for five RDW staff members to visit Giga Berlin. About a week later, an RDW staffer invited Tesla to suggest how RDW might “adjust or reduce the required effort moving forward.” The sequence is documented in the reporting, but it does not prove that the dispute affected the eventual decision.
That same April correspondence reportedly shows Tesla asking RDW to give advance notice of test details and safety-driver names. Significant portions of the exchanges remain redacted.
Did RDW change its review or approval because of the pressure?
The correspondence shows requests, disagreements and some accommodation, but it does not establish that Tesla dictated the review or that its pressure caused RDW to approve the system nationally. The invoice exchange is evidence of a cost dispute and a subsequent invitation to discuss reducing effort; it is not proof of a changed approval decision.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesRDW told Reuters that interaction with manufacturers “does not compromise the independence or thoroughness of our assessment.” The regulator said it conducted its own tests on closed tracks and public roads in varied conditions. These statements provide RDW’s account of its process; the published correspondence and limited access to test evidence make it difficult for outsiders to independently assess how the interactions affected the review.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known—and not known—about RDW’s safety testing?
RDW did not disclose its test data in the cited coverage, saying it was protected by manufacturer-specific information and trade-secret considerations. The coverage also did not explain publicly how RDW measured safety. As a result, readers can see reported examples of the regulator’s exchanges with Tesla and RDW’s description of its own testing, but cannot examine the underlying results or fully evaluate the decision against them.
Reuters reported that seven traffic-safety researchers reviewed Tesla’s European safety-study methodology. They said the FSD sample—described as tens or hundreds of thousands of miles—was too small to compare meaningfully with hundreds of millions of miles of manual Tesla driving. The researchers also criticized Tesla’s use of driving-behavior proxies such as honking, blinker use, braking and cornering, saying the study did not establish that FSD prevents fatal crashes. Former NHTSA statistician and University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute researcher Marco Benedetti said: “When you start getting into ‘lives saved,’ that’s where it gets nonsensical.”
These are researchers’ methodological criticisms as reported by Reuters, not proof that the system is unsafe. The cited figures describe approximate sample scales, not crash rates, and the cited material does not demonstrate that FSD prevents crashes or deaths in Europe.
Recommended Free Tools
What does “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” mean?
Despite its name, “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” is a driver-assistance system that requires a human driver to pay attention and be ready to take over, according to the reporting. It should not be described as fully autonomous driving.
Why the public record remains incomplete
The Reuters-reviewed correspondence is partly redacted, RDW’s test data was not public in the cited coverage, and the underlying emails were not all available for readers to inspect. Those limits leave open questions about the context of particular exchanges and how the regulator weighed its evidence. They also mean the public record supports a narrower conclusion than claims of regulatory capture or a proven safety verdict: Tesla pressed RDW over aspects of its review, RDW says its independence and testing were not compromised, and the available material does not resolve whether the accommodations affected the approval.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
