A collective legal push by Dutch owners over Tesla's HW3 (Hardware 3) vehicles is rapidly expanding. With it emerging that Full Self-Driving (FSD) is effectively impossible to implement on HW3 cars, owners say Tesla failed to provide the performance it promised.

Electrek, an electric-vehicle outlet, reported on June 18 that participants in the ongoing HW3-related collective claim in the Netherlands have recently risen to about 7,000.

The effort drew attention when about 3,000 owners joined in the first week after it began in April. Participation has continued to increase, and the number of verified participants is now nearing 7,000. Organisers are preparing to establish a foundation to represent owners under Dutch class action law. If the foundation is set up, the process is expected to shift to a formal class action system that handles legal procedures in a single track.

At the heart of the dispute is whether Tesla effectively promised the feasibility of implementing full self-driving when selling HW3 vehicles. Claimants argue that the value of vehicles from before the HW4 generation also reflected expectations that "full self-driving would be possible in the future". They therefore believe that even HW3 owners who did not buy a separate FSD package could be eligible for damages.

Owners who additionally purchased the FSD package are also raising separate refund demands. Organisers say claims for refunds of up to 6,400 euros are possible under Dutch standards.

The key evidence cited by owners is an approval decision by the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW). When RDW approved FSD Supervised functions in Europe on April 10, it limited the scope to HW4 vehicles. Claimants say the decision effectively shows that Tesla cannot deliver the level of autonomous driving it promised on HW3 vehicles.

Legal support is also ramping up. Dutch law firm Kennedy Van der Laan is supporting preparations for the case, and talks are also reported to be under way with a separate litigation funding company. If that structure is confirmed, owners can participate without upfront costs, and the funding firm would take part of any award as a fee if they win.

Materials obtained through freedom-of-information requests have also fuelled the controversy. Documents released by RDW show Tesla applied for FSD type approval in November 2024, but the test scope and vehicle configuration were set exclusively for HW4. RDW also said in a written response in May this year that HW3 vehicles have never been submitted for type-approval review.

Claimants say this supports their argument that Tesla did not attempt to obtain approval for HW3. Some owners in particular point out that Tesla has described the situation as if it were pursuing an appeals process after an HW3 approval rejection. But the released materials show no official records related to an HW3 approval application, rejection or appeal.

The controversy grew after Tesla publicly acknowledged HW3's limitations early this year. In its first-quarter 2026 earnings release, Tesla said it would be difficult to implement Unsupervised FSD with HW3 hardware alone. Chief Executive Elon Musk (일론 머스크) cited "memory bandwidth" at the time as a key bottleneck.

Tesla proposed a discounted trade-in programme and hardware upgrade options for HW3 owners. It is reported, however, that an upgrade would require replacing not only the self-driving computer but the vehicle's entire camera system.

The trajectory of FSD launches in Europe is also hardening around HW4. Tesla recently rolled out FSD Supervised functions in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania, but all were limited to HW4 vehicles. Owners say functions Tesla previously promoted as possible on HW3 are in practice being implemented only on HW4.

How Tesla has dealt with regulators has also come under scrutiny. Reuters reported on June 15 that Tesla submitted potentially misleading statistics related to FSD safety to European regulators including RDW. According to the report, 10 of 11 road safety experts assessed the material as closer to marketing than proof of actual safety.

The industry sees whether a foundation is set up and whether litigation funding is secured as a turning point in the case. If a formal class action begins, key issues are whether all HW3 vehicles could be eligible for compensation and how broadly refund demands by FSD purchasers will be accepted.