The reason someone could interpret it as forbidding them from telling the NHTSA is because that's what it purports to do - it's worded as a blanket ban on discu

The reason someone could interpret it as forbidding them from telling the NHTSA is because that's what it purports to do - it's worded as a blanket ban on discussing the failure. The only reason it doesn't is because that would almost certainly be illegal. Thing is, most customers don't know that and don't want to be sued, which makes writing contracts that appear to do so a sleazy and somewhat effective way of stopping them. That's why the NHTSA is pissed: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/business/tesla-model-s-nhtsa-suspension-failure.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/business/tesla-model-s-nht... Speaking of sleazy and dishonest, this part of the Tesla blogpost is both: "this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars" It doesn't mention either because it's a blanket ban on talking about the failure. If Tesla hadn't wanted to make people think they couldn't talk to the government, they'd have specifically permitted it. This is a common enough issue that I doubt their lawyers would've missed it when drafting the NDA.