The Promise vs. Reality of FSD

When Tesla introduced its Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature, it was sold as a glimpse into the future—a car that could navigate city streets, highways, and intersections without human intervention. For a price tag that has climbed from $8,000 to $12,000 or more, owners were promised a system that would eventually achieve full autonomy. Yet, the reality is far less glamorous. FSD remains at Level 2 automation, requiring constant driver supervision, a fact that has led to widespread confusion and criticism.

California took a stand against this ambiguity in 2023 with Senate Bill 1398, which bans manufacturers from marketing partially automated systems as fully self-driving (California DMV). This law directly targeted Tesla’s branding, which has been accused of misleading consumers. A 2022 class-action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court echoed this sentiment, alleging that Tesla has falsely advertised FSD since 2016, promising capabilities that remain undelivered (Reuters). The gap between Tesla’s marketing and FSD’s actual performance has fueled skepticism, reflected in its declining adoption rate. A 2021 survey by Troy Teslike found that only 11.1% of Tesla buyers opted for FSD in Q2 2021, down from a peak of 46% in 2019 (InsideEVs).

Despite Tesla’s high customer loyalty—boasting a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 99% for the Model 3, according to a 2022 Bloomberg study (CustomerGauge)—FSD itself is not the universal draw it’s made out to be. Many buyers are drawn to Tesla’s sleek design, electric efficiency, and brand prestige, but the low FSD take rate suggests that the feature’s cost and limitations are deterring customers. This makes Tesla’s decision to penalize FSD users even more perplexing, as it risks alienating the very enthusiasts who fund their innovation.

Tesla’s branding as a family-friendly car for the masses, not a luxury item like a Lamborghini, further complicates the issue. Unlike Lamborghini, which markets its vehicles to the elite with strict usage expectations, Tesla promotes its cars as the future of everyday transportation. Elon Musk has gone to great lengths to position Tesla as accessible, with models like the Model 3 and Model Y designed for families, commuters, and tech lovers alike. Yet, the penalties for FSD misuse treat owners like beta testers for an exclusive feature, not customers who paid for a reliable product. This disconnect between Tesla’s egalitarian marketing and its authoritarian control over FSD creates a sense of betrayal among owners who expected a seamless, innovative driving experience.

The Penalties for Misuse: A Question of Fairness

Tesla’s FSD penalties are enforced through a cabin-facing camera that monitors driver attentiveness, primarily in 2021 and later Model 3, Model Y, and refreshed Model S and X vehicles. If drivers repeatedly look away—say, to sip coffee or adjust glasses—they risk “strikes” that can lead to temporary or permanent suspension of FSD. While Tesla frames this as a safety measure, it feels like a slap in the face to owners who paid $12,000 for a feature that defines the Tesla experience.

Picture buying a smart oven that promises to transform your cooking with AI-driven recipes and temperature control. You shell out $2,000, only to find the manufacturer can remotely disable it because you didn’t follow their exact cooking instructions. You’d be furious, right? This is the reality for Tesla owners whose FSD is locked out for perceived misuse. The feature isn’t a subscription like Netflix, where you might expect restrictions for sharing passwords; it’s a one-time purchase, part of the car you own. Disabling it feels like a violation of ownership, akin to a phone company bricking your device because you searched for something they deemed inappropriate.

Consider another analogy: a premium software suite like Adobe Photoshop. If Adobe disabled your advanced editing tools because you used them “incorrectly,” you’d feel cheated. FSD is no different—it’s a costly feature you bought outright, not a conditional license. Yet, Tesla’s policy treats it as such, undermining the trust of customers who invested in their vision of the future.

The unfairness is amplified by Tesla’s stance on liability. The company explicitly states that drivers are responsible for any FSD-related crashes, as the system requires constant supervision (Tesla Support). If you get into an accident, Tesla washes its hands of responsibility, leaving you to face legal and financial consequences. Yet, they reserve the right to disable FSD if you don’t meet their attentiveness standards. It’s a double standard: you bear all the risk, but Tesla holds all the control. This feels not just unfair but disrespectful, as if Tesla trusts you to buy their car but not to use it responsibly.

Tesla’s FSD has faced significant scrutiny for its safety record. In 2021, a Tesla Model Y driver reported a crash to the NHTSA, alleging that FSD caused the vehicle to veer into the wrong lane (Reuters). This incident was followed by a 2023 NHTSA recall of 363,000 vehicles due to FSD’s failure to handle intersections and speed limits properly (PBS News). A 2025 fatal crash involving FSD further intensified concerns, with regulators questioning whether the system is safe even with a human driver (Bloomberg).

These incidents highlight a critical flaw: FSD is not yet the reliable, autonomous system Tesla promised. A 2020 Consumer Reports review called FSD a “misnomer,” noting that it falls short of full autonomy and requires constant driver attention (Consumer Reports). Penalizing users for not using an imperfect system perfectly is a band-aid solution that shifts blame rather than addressing the technology’s shortcomings.

Moreover, existing legal frameworks already tackle distracted driving. Over 40 states have laws against texting while driving, with fines up to $500 in places like California. In 2023, California alone issued thousands of tickets for mobile device use while driving. States like Virginia and Texas require annual vehicle inspections to ensure safety features like brake lights function properly, with penalties enforced by police, not manufacturers. If a driver fails to use turn signals or drives with faulty lights, cops issue tickets, not GM or Nissan disabling features. Why should Tesla be any different? Their penalties are redundant, bypassing a system of elected officials and law enforcement that already holds drivers accountable.

Autonomy and Control: Who Owns Your Car?

The core issue is one of autonomy. When you buy a Tesla, you expect to own it—every feature, every capability. FSD isn’t just a perk; it’s the reason many choose Tesla over a “boring” car. Disabling it feels like stripping the soul from your vehicle, leaving you with a shell of what you paid for. It’s as if Boeing decided to disable a plane’s autopilot because a pilot partied too much the night before. Aviation relies on regulators like the FAA to enforce safety, not manufacturers playing vigilante. Similarly, carmakers like GM or Toyota don’t lock out your turn signals if you forget to use them; they trust drivers to face legal consequences.

Another analogy drives this home: medical devices. Imagine buying a pacemaker, only to have the manufacturer disable it because you didn’t follow their exact lifestyle guidelines. It’s unthinkable—your life depends on that device, just as your daily commute might depend on FSD. Tesla’s paternalistic approach—deciding when and how you can use a feature you own—undermines the principles of ownership and personal responsibility. It’s not just about safety; it’s about control, and Tesla is overstepping.

The Slippery Slope: A Dystopian Future

If Tesla’s penalties become the norm, the implications are chilling. What’s to stop other carmakers from disabling features for “misuse”? Imagine Toyota shutting off your blind-spot monitoring because you ignored too many warnings, or Ford disabling your cruise control for speeding. The absurdity extends beyond cars. Picture a landlord evicting you because your smart thermostat detected “excessive” energy use, or Apple bricking your iPhone because you left it in a hot car, triggering a warning. I once left my phone in a car in Arizona, and it displayed a heat warning but didn’t lock me out. Apple addressed the issue without punishing me—Tesla could learn from that.

As AI and automation permeate our lives, the risk of corporate overreach grows. Tesla’s robotaxi plans, unveiled as a driverless future, raise even wilder concerns. What if a robotaxi locks you out for getting “frisky” with your spouse or partying too hard? X posts in 2024 speculated about such scenarios, with users joking about Tesla policing passenger behavior. If we let Tesla control FSD, what’s next? A world where every device monitors and restricts us under the guise of safety or brand protection? This precedent threatens consumer freedom across industries.

Alternatives: Innovation Over Punishment

Tesla has better options than disabling FSD. One compelling solution is mandatory training for repeat offenders, akin to traffic school. If I get too many warnings, make me watch a two-hour video on safe FSD use—I’d be fine with that. It educates without stripping away what I paid for. Tesla could also enhance FSD to pull over automatically if it detects distraction or impairment, showcasing its AI’s brilliance. Imagine the PR win: “Tesla Saves Drunk Driver by Safely Stopping!” A 2024 X post praised Tesla’s ability to stop for emergency vehicles, proving the tech exists.

Another approach is sharing camera data with authorities, letting existing laws handle misuse. If I’m consistently distracted, let the police fine me or suspend my license, as they do for texting or speeding. Tesla could offer a user agreement: keep getting warnings, and you consent to data sharing in case of a crash, with a six-month reset period. This respects my autonomy while protecting Tesla’s interests. Disabling FSD, however, doesn’t improve the tech or make me a better driver—it just punishes me and stalls innovation. A 2024 MotorTrend article noted that FSD relies on user data to improve, so locking out users reduces valuable feedback (MotorTrend).

Conclusion: A Call for Change

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving penalties are a misstep that undermines consumer trust and stifles innovation. By disabling a feature that defines the Tesla experience, the company disrespects the very customers who fuel its success. FSD isn’t just a feature; it’s why many of us chose Tesla, dreaming of a smarter, safer future. Punishing us for an imperfect system’s flaws—while shirking liability—is not the answer. Existing laws, training programs, and smarter AI can address safety without eroding our rights. As Tesla pushes toward robotaxis and beyond, it must prioritize transparency, fairness, and genuine progress over control. The road to autonomy should be paved with innovation, not penalties.

About the Author

QuantumX is just a regular Joe, who's also a QuantumCage observer.

Sources & Key Citation: