Introduction

Introduction

Safety recall or software update?

On July 30, Tesla announced a recall plan involving over 1.8 million vehicles due to a potential safety risk associated with the hood latch mechanism. However, similar to most of Tesla's previous recalls, this issue was resolved through a simple over-the-air (OTA) software update.

According to the recall notice posted on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the recall covers all model years of the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y. The issue with these vehicles is that the hood latch assembly may fail to detect an unlatched hood, potentially allowing it to fully open while the vehicle is in motion, obstructing the driver's view and increasing the risk of a collision.

Tesla stated that the first occurrence of this issue was reported in March this year when Chinese customers complained about the unexpected opening of their car hoods. By mid-April, Tesla confirmed that the problem stemmed from deformation of the hood latch switch, preventing the vehicle from notifying the driver of an unlatched hood. The company subsequently initiated engineering research in early June in Europe and North America to gain further insights into the issue.

After investigation and research, Tesla decided to issue a safety recall notice in mid-July and notified the NHTSA of this decision.

To address this issue, Tesla released an OTA software update (version 2024.20.3) on June 18. The purpose of this update was to detect whether the hood was open and alert the driver accordingly. If the hood was not properly latched, the solution aimed to mitigate potential risks by prompting the driver to stop and secure the hood.

In fact, this is not the first time Tesla has used OTA upgrades to address vehicle issues. With the increasing intelligence of automobiles, similar to most vehicle recalls, the current method of fixing faults in smart cars is through software updates.

Coincidentally, just two days later, on August 1, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) publicly solicited comments on the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Administration of Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Access, Recall, and Online Software Upgrade" (Draft for Comment). This notice emphasizes strengthening the supervision and management of OTA upgrade activities.

Before implementing OTA upgrades, enterprises must ensure that their automotive products comply with national laws, regulations, technical standards, and specifications, and register with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the State Administration for Market Regulation according to relevant requirements. The registration content includes enterprise management capabilities, vehicle models and functions, specific upgrade activities, and relevant supporting materials.

Enterprises can only carry out OTA upgrade activities after completing the registration process. Changes to product technical parameters must be reported to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology before registration to ensure the consistency of automotive product production. The State Administration for Market Regulation conducts timely evaluation and supervision of registrations to regulate the application of OTA upgrades and prevent enterprises from concealing vehicle defects or evading responsibility through OTA upgrades.

For recalls conducted through OTA upgrades to eliminate vehicle defects, enterprises must formulate a recall plan in accordance with the "Measures for the Implementation of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products" and promptly register with the State Administration for Market Regulation.

In recent years, global automakers have received significant attention due to large-scale software recalls. Several smart electric vehicle manufacturers have issued recall notices due to issues that could affect vehicle functionality or even endanger driver safety. However, these recalls differ from traditional recalls as they are conducted through OTA updates, eliminating the need for owners to visit service centers. This shift marks a transformation in the landscape of automotive software recalls.

A prominent example is Tesla's recall of over 2 million vehicles through OTA upgrades. Tesla's recall notice stated that the company's Advanced Driver Assistance System, Autopilot, lacked sufficient system controls to prevent driver misoperation, potentially increasing the risk of collisions. As a result, the company had to recall software for almost all Tesla vehicles in the United States.

This incident sparked debates about whether vehicles qualified for recalls, especially when they did not require dealer repairs. Elon Musk, Tesla's CEO, actively contributed to the discourse by advocating for modernizing the term "recall" to better align with the nature of modern software recalls. He argued that describing OTA software fixes as recalls was "outdated and inaccurate."

Given that safety recalls can now be seamlessly conducted through OTA updates without following the same processes as traditional recalls, the question arises: should they still be considered "recalls"? Alternatively, could they be viewed as "security patches" or simply "software updates"? This is a question worthy of exploration.

As we enter the era of connected vehicles and software-driven features, competition among automakers is fiercer than ever. To gain a competitive edge in the market, automakers invest heavily in developing complex applications. Consequently, they have a stronger incentive to introduce new features more quickly.

However, it's crucial to acknowledge a non-negligible fact: while OTA updates have undoubtedly accelerated innovation in the automotive industry, enabling rapid iteration and optimization of vehicle features, significantly enhancing user experience and reducing the high costs and time associated with traditional recalls, they also pose potential risks.

Specifically, OTA updates may tempt enterprises to prematurely launch software versions that have not undergone sufficient testing and validation in pursuit of market advantage and technological leadership. This undoubtedly increases the risk of software defects and security vulnerabilities.

Historically, the term "safety recall" has often been associated with negative emotions and social implications. For vehicle owners, facing a recall often means enduring a cumbersome process, including taking their vehicles to dealers for repairs, which can sometimes take several days, inconveniencing their daily commutes.

For automakers, conducting safety recalls not only entails significant financial burdens, such as the direct costs of free repairs and part replacements, but also faces negative media coverage and potential long-term damage to brand reputation. These indirect impacts cannot be overlooked.

If the burden of "safety recall" is alleviated by changing terminology, will automakers still bear the negative consequences of introducing potentially dangerous software? To what extent will they be held accountable? Perhaps the term "safety recall" serves as a check and balance system, ensuring that automakers take social responsibility for safety issues in their software.

If automakers fail to self-regulate, legal and regulatory interventions are necessary, as exemplified by the MIIT's solicitation of comments on the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Administration of Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Access, Recall, and Online Software Upgrade" (Draft for Comment) on August 1. For recalls conducted through OTA upgrades to eliminate vehicle defects, enterprises must formulate recall plans in accordance with the "Measures for the Implementation of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products" and promptly register with the State Administration for Market Regulation.