An aerial view of the Tesla Fremont Manufacturing facility in San Rafael, California, Jan. 29, 2026.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Photographs
Tesla is suing California’s Division of Motor Autos to reverse a ruling that discovered the automaker violated the regulation by falsely selling its automobiles’ self-driving capabilities.
The swimsuit comes two months after the state’s Workplace of Administrative Hearings decided that Tesla engaged in false promoting, and stated the DMV might quickly droop the corporate’s licenses to fabricate or promote automobiles within the state.
The DMV as a substitute requested Tesla to scrub up its advertising and marketing language. By Feb. 17, the company stated Tesla had completed so appropriately and no license suspension could be required.
However Tesla, which is banking a lot of its future on robotaxis, needs the DMV to go additional. In their criticism, dated Feb. 13, attorneys for the automaker alleged that the company “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled Tesla a “false advertiser” for its prior use of the phrases “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”
Tesla now makes use of the model identify “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to explain its partially automated driver help system, and it sells it solely on a subscription foundation. Up to now, Tesla packaged partially automated driving options in Autopilot customary, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving tiers, and it supplied some prospects “beta” or early entry to new options, which aren’t but totally debugged. It offered the techniques for a single up-front payment.
The DMV didn’t instantly present a remark. Tesla did not instantly reply to a request for remark.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has lengthy promised traders and prospects that the corporate’s automobiles could be upgraded over time by way of over-the-air software program updates that will flip them into robotaxi-ready automobiles. That hasn’t occurred but, although the corporate’s techniques have develop into extra subtle.
After gross sales of its electrical automobiles declined final 12 months, Tesla’s future success hinges largely on its potential to ship driverless techniques that make their automobiles secure to make use of and not using a human on the wheel, able to steer or brake at any time.
Tesla is now testing a handful of automated automobiles in its Robotaxi pilot in Austin, Texas. Final week, the corporate introduced the beginning of manufacturing of its forthcoming Cybercab, a two-seater designed and not using a steering wheel or pedals, in Texas.
Tesla has for years offered its techniques as in the event that they have been secure to make use of with out an attentive driver. For instance, in 2018 Musk appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” driving in a Mannequin 3 with Autopilot engaged and correspondent Lesley Stahl within the passenger seat. Musk saved his arms off the wheel and informed Stahl that he was “not doing something,” whereas the automobile was driving itself.
Nevertheless, Tesla’s house owners manuals specify that drivers shouldn’t use FSD (Supervised) options with out listening to the street.
In filings with California’s OAH, attorneys for the state’s DMV wrote that Tesla’s advertising and marketing for “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” falsely urged the automobiles are able to working autonomously.
Tesla’s attorneys alleged that the DMV by no means proved shoppers within the state had been confused about whether or not its automobiles have been secure to drive and not using a human on the wheel.
When Tesla used these model names, the corporate’s attorneys argued, “It was unimaginable to purchase a Tesla outfitted with both Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Functionality, or to make use of any of their related options, with out seeing clear and repeated statements that they don’t make the automobile autonomous.”
In a separate class-action lawsuit that is winding its approach by California courts, prospects who bought FSD anticipating their automobiles to be upgraded into robotaxi-ready automobiles over time are asking for his or her a refund.
Tesla was additionally held partly accountable for a deadly crash involving Autopilot. Throughout the trial, the Tesla proprietor stated he had dropped his cellphone whereas driving and scrambled to select it up, however thought the automobile’s Enhanced Autopilot system would brake if an impediment was in the way in which. The swimsuit resulted in a $243 million verdict in opposition to Tesla to be paid to the household of the deceased and an injured survivor of the crash.
WATCH: Nancy Tengler says Tesla remains to be a generational alternative