It’s long been said the most dangerous person in the word is a bureaucrat with a rulebook, something that Tesla CEO Elon Musk frequently encounters.
Tesla was accused of fraudulent advertising on Friday by the California Department of Motor Vehicles over its marketing of the brand-name Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies. The company’s promotional language on its website overstated the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technology, according to the agency.
The DMV complaint made with California’s Office of Administrative Hearings contends Tesla “made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading, and not based on facts, in advertising vehicles as equipped, or potentially equipped, with advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features.”
The phrases that rankle the DMV
In particular, California regulators take issue with the phrase, “The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.”
The state agency also finds Tesla’s claims misleading, notably the one that says, “From Home — All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways. To your Destination – When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.”
The DMV finds that the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving Capability” and their descriptions denote that, “will operate as an autonomous vehicle, but vehicles equipped with those ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles.”
Despite Tesla’s contradictory disclaimers, including one that states that the features “require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous,” the state still finds the original statements untrue or misleading and says the disclaimer does not cure the violation.
What could happen next
The California DMV’s remedies could include revoking license to manufacture or sell cars in California, reimburse those who have bought Teslas with the ADAS features, or “any other and further action as it may deem just and proper.”
The administrative court has given Tesla 15 days to respond to the charges; if it does not, the DMV will make a default determination.
A DMV spokesperson said Friday in an email to the Los Angeles Times, “the DMV will ask that Tesla will be required to advertise to consumers and better educate Tesla drivers about the capabilities of its ‘Autopilot’ and ‘Full Self-Driving’ features, including cautionary warnings regarding the limitations of the features, and for other actions as appropriate given the violations.”
The feds are watching
Automakers are obligated to notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of significant collisions involving advanced driver-assist systems. But approximately 70% of the more than 270 documented crashes employing ADAS systems over the past 11 months involve Teslas. Additionally, NHTSA has opened 37 crash investigations into collisions involving Tesla’s driver assistance systems. And, NHTSA is also examining whether Tesla’s Autopilot technology is flawed and has to be recalled.
Last year, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into possible misleading marketing tactics Tesla may have used to promote its driver-assistance technology.
All Teslas now come with Autopilot, with FSD (or Full Self Driving) available as a $12,000 option, or as a $199 monthly subscription. More than 100,000 vehicles are now equipped with FSD.
The DMV complaint against Tesla was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Are airplane manufacturers next?
They have been selling autopilot for years but the pilots still need to be there in case another plane gets too close or if they run into weather issues.
It is Not responsible to report safety information out of context with such angry anti-Tesla bias.
Tesla autopilot features, when enabled, have saved many lives, compared to cars without those features.
This is clear from the accident rates of Tesla vehicles.
The meaningless statistic that “most automated car deaths are in Telsas” is simply a sign of their leadership. More people would have died if they had not had an automated car. Less people would die if they actually use the safety features of autopilot more.
Your reporting will cause deaths by making people fear their autopilot features.
A very “fan-boy” comment and very wrong-headed, Sue. First, the data do NO suggest that Autopilot has “saved many lives,” despite Musk’s claims. Secondly, we have clearly reported that the NHTSA data regarding crashes and fatalities involving automated systems is — by the agency’s own words, incomplete, as not all automakers currently report on such incidents involving Level 2 autonomous systems. BUT…there is no question there have been a substantial number of crashes and fatalities which appear to involve Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technology (and more on that in a moment). Third, there is absolutely NO way to justify your statement that “more people would have died” if they didn’t use such technologies. No data to back that up whatsoever. At best, we have Elon Musk’s boasts and very carefully selected numbers and comments.
As to leadership, it is interesting to see that Autopilot and FSD have taken hits by several reputable testing sources, including the normally very pro-Tesla Consumer Reports, as well as Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport. Both saw the Tesla technology as performing nowhere near as well as competing systems, such as GM’s Super Cruise. I am NOT going to debate whether they are or aren’t correct. I don’t have access to their testing processes but they aren’t the only ones who have had concerns about Tesla tech.
As to claiming WE will cause deaths, that’s a classic “shoot-the-messenger” claim and pro forma absurd. For one thing, it is critical that potential safety problems (as well as more general quality issues) be reported. It actually can motivate a manufacturer to look at its own tech and products to see if there IS a problem. And it can motivate regulators to take a closer look to see if there IS or ISN’T an issue. Clearly, NHTSA has begun growing more concerned based on the data it has received. And I would trust that they have the ability to deeply analyze the data. If potential buyers take a cautious approach, so be it. MEANWHILE…reporting on such problems could also SAVE lives by making it clear what Autopilot and FSD CAN and CANNOT do.
Note, incidentally, that there are growing concerns not only about the lack of driver monitoring tech on most Autopilot-equipped vehicles, but also about the tech Tesla is belatedly installing on some new vehicles. These are concerns that may lead to a massive recall. It has been unequivocally demonstrated that driver monitoring is essential to get motorists to maintain eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.
We have seen far too many videos of folks falling asleep or even jumping in the backseat when the tech is running. We clearly know that many motorists do NOT heed Tesla’s OWN stated safety procedures which require hands ON the wheel, even when Autopilot and FSD are operating. So, if such reporting helps convince owners to correctly use their vehicles’ tech, that will SAVE lives.
Finally, lets get back to the actual subject of this story, CA regulators accusing Tesla of false advertising. They aren’t the only ones, incidentally. The automaker has come under fire in many countries for using terms like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. Both imply far greater capabilities than the two systems actually offer and, as I mentioned earlier, it is clear that MANY owners have taken the implied meaning to heart, driving hands-off, leaving the driver’s seat or even falling asleep behind the wheel.
Sorry to say, Sue, but your fan-boy defense of Tesla is wrong on pretty much all counts.
Paul A. Eisenstein
Publisher, TheDetroitBureau.com
Oh, and one PS: where Tesla deserves being defended, we will do that, as well. See our story going up this afternoon taking down insurance co. Axa for faking a Tesla crash and fire.
Paul E.