Tesla Challenges California DMV’s Ruling on Autopilot Marketing
Tesla has initiated legal proceedings against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to contest a ruling that found the automaker’s marketing of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) features misleading. This lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the ongoing dispute over Tesla’s portrayal of its vehicles’ autonomous capabilities.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy began in December 2025 when the California DMV determined that Tesla’s use of the terms Autopilot and Full Self-Driving in its marketing materials violated state laws by potentially misleading consumers into believing that Tesla vehicles could operate autonomously without human intervention. The DMV’s decision was based on findings that these terms could give consumers a false impression of the vehicles’ capabilities, as the systems still require active driver supervision. ([dmv.ca.gov](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/news-releases/dmv-finds-tesla-violated-california-state-law/?utm_source=openai))
Tesla’s Compliance and Subsequent Legal Action
In response to the DMV’s ruling, Tesla took corrective measures to avoid penalties, including the suspension of its dealer and manufacturer licenses. The company ceased using the term Autopilot in its California marketing materials and clarified that the Full Self-Driving feature requires driver supervision by renaming it Full Self-Driving (Supervised). These actions led the DMV to confirm that Tesla had complied with the required changes, thereby avoiding the suspension of its licenses. ([dmv.ca.gov](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/tesla-takes-corrective-action-to-avoid-dmv-suspension/?utm_source=openai))
Despite these adjustments, Tesla filed a lawsuit against the DMV on February 13, 2026, seeking to overturn the agency’s ruling. In its complaint, Tesla argued that the DMV’s decision was wrongfully and baselessly labeling the company as a false advertiser. Tesla contended that the DMV had not provided evidence that consumers were misled about the vehicles’ capabilities and noted that the agency had been aware of the Autopilot branding since 2014 and Full Self-Driving since 2016. ([electrek.co](https://electrek.co/2026/02/23/tesla-sues-california-dmv-reverse-fsd-false-advertising-ruling/?utm_source=openai))
Implications of the Legal Challenge
Tesla’s decision to pursue legal action after complying with the DMV’s directives raises questions about the company’s motivations. By challenging the false advertiser label, Tesla appears to be aiming to protect its reputation and future business prospects, particularly as it continues to develop and promote autonomous driving technologies. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how autonomous vehicle technologies are marketed and regulated, not only in California but potentially across the United States.
Broader Context and Industry Impact
This legal battle is set against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny over the marketing and safety of autonomous driving technologies. Regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have been investigating whether Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving has led drivers to overestimate the systems’ capabilities, potentially increasing safety risks. ([theregister.com](https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/11/tesla_california_autopilot_lawsuit/?utm_source=openai))
The case also highlights the challenges faced by automakers in balancing the promotion of advanced driver assistance systems with ensuring that consumers have a clear and accurate understanding of the technology’s limitations. As the industry moves closer to fully autonomous vehicles, clear communication and responsible marketing will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring safety on the roads.
Conclusion
Tesla’s lawsuit against the California DMV underscores the complexities and challenges in the evolving landscape of autonomous vehicle technology and its regulation. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for how such technologies are marketed and the responsibilities of automakers in conveying the capabilities and limitations of their systems to consumers.
