"The state 'wrongfully and baselessly labels Tesla a false advertiser for marketing its industry-leading advanced driver-assistance systems ('ADAS') under the brand names "Autopilot" and "Full-Self Driving Capability." Tesla said that Autopilot and Full-Self Driving Capability were never advertised as fully autonomous and that it has repeatedly warned against the misuse of its systems to consumers."
"In 2025, the California Department of Motor Vehicles said that Tesla was misrepresenting the capabilities of its Autopilot system and driving aids. It wasn't just the name Autopilot that bothered the DMV; it was claims of it being 'able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat.'"
"The resolution that Tesla wants is to reverse the California DMV order that labeled the brand as such, adding that it was 'factually wrong, legally flawed, unconstitutional, and should be set aside.' Tesla argued the expert testimony of the California DMV, stating that only one expert was used."
In 2025, California's DMV determined Tesla misrepresented its Autopilot system by claiming it could conduct trips with no driver action required. Tesla faced a potential 30-day sales suspension and was ordered to change marketing language, subsequently rebranding to Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Tesla appealed the ruling, arguing the false advertiser designation is baseless and unconstitutional. The company contends Autopilot and Full Self-Driving were never marketed as fully autonomous and that it provided repeated consumer warnings. Tesla challenged the DMV's evidence, noting only one non-marketing expert provided testimony supporting the regulatory decision.
#tesla-autopilot #california-dmv-regulation #false-advertising #autonomous-driving-marketing #legal-appeal
Read at Autoblog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]