California Judge Rules Elon Musk's Tesla Deceptively Marketed 'Autopilot' and Full Self-Driving Systems

A California judge has ruled that Tesla misled consumers with the marketing of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems, engaging in deceptive practices that violated both civil and vehicle codes in the state. Elon Musk’s EV giant could face a 30-day suspension of manufacturing and sales of cars in the state, one of its most important markets.

CNBC reports that in a ruling that could have significant implications for Tesla’s operations in California, an administrative law judge has found the electric vehicle manufacturer guilty of deceptive marketing practices surrounding its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems. The judge’s order, which was adopted with modifications by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, calls for a 30-day suspension of Tesla’s licenses to sell and manufacture cars in the state.

The DMV’s accusations against Tesla date back to 2022, when the agency alleged that the automaker’s marketing of its Autopilot and FSD systems suggested that its vehicles could operate autonomously, despite requiring an attentive driver at the wheel at all times. The judge’s ruling affirms these accusations, stating that a reasonable consumer would likely believe that a vehicle with “Full Self-Driving Capability” could safely travel without constant, undivided attention from a human driver – a belief that is incorrect from both technological and legal standpoints.

In response to the ruling, Tesla has been given a 60-day window to address and resolve any deceptive or confusing claims about its Autopilot and FSD systems. If the company fails to do so within this timeframe, the DMV will proceed with a 30-day suspension of Tesla’s license to sell cars in California. However, the agency has decided to stay the judge’s order for a suspension of Tesla’s manufacturing license, ensuring that there will be no disruption to the company’s factory operations in the state.

Tesla, through its public relations firm FGS Global, has defended its position, stating that the case was a “consumer protection” order and that not a single customer had come forward to report any issues. The company also emphasized that sales in California will continue uninterrupted.

Despite Tesla’s stance, the automaker is currently facing a class-action lawsuit in California’s Northern District, filed by drivers who claim that the company misled them for years regarding the self-driving capabilities of their Tesla electric vehicles. This lawsuit, coupled with the recent administrative law judge’s ruling, highlights the growing scrutiny surrounding Tesla’s marketing practices and the capabilities of its advanced driver assistance systems.

Breitbart News previously reported on this class action suit:

The plaintiffs argue that Tesla and Musk made false claims about the company’s ability to achieve high-level autonomy, citing the lack of sensors and the inability to demonstrate a long-distance autonomous drive with any of its vehicles. Judge Lin noted that thousands of people were likely exposed to Tesla’s assertions about its vehicles containing hardware for full self-driving, which were made on the company’s website, blog posts, newsletters, and even during a press conference by Musk himself.

Tesla’s unique advertising strategy, which forgoes traditional mass advertising and independent dealers, played a significant role in the judge’s decision. Lin stated that it was reasonable to infer that class members interested in the FSD technology would have visited Tesla’s website to gather information, making the company’s statements material to their purchasing decisions.

Elon Musk’s Autopilot and FSD systems have faced scrutiny at multiple levels of government this year and also were a major focus during a major trial in Florida that found the company partially liable for a fatal crash:

According to Cummings, Tesla’s owner’s manual, which contains crucial warnings about the Autopilot system’s functionality, is not easily accessible to drivers. She also pointed out that Tesla had been grappling with drivers ignoring computer-generated warnings prior to the crash. Cummings noted that the company had not implemented geo-fencing, a technology already in use by other car manufacturers to prevent drivers from activating driver-assistance features on roads unsuitable for such systems.

When asked by Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, about Tesla’s decision not to use geo-fencing in 2019, Cummings responded, “I believe they were using that as a way to sell more cars.” Cummings, who previously served as a senior adviser at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is expected to face questioning from Tesla’s lawyers when she returns to the witness stand.

The trial, expected to last three weeks, is the first federal case to challenge Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s claims about the safety of his company’s vehicles. It comes at a crucial time for Tesla as the company pushes to launch its robotaxi business and stakes its future partially on autonomous driving technology.