![](\"https:\/\/cdn.motor1.com\/images\/static\/16x9-tr.png\")
<\/p>\nMore than a year after the California Department of Motor Vehicles claimed that Tesla was falsely advertising the autonomous capabilities of its driver assistance features, the now-Texas-based automaker is defending itself in a new legal filing.<\/p>\n
Tesla, however, believes that it\u2019s in the clear because of the implications. Specifically, Tesla says that the DMV implied its approved use of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving branding after the department had failed to take corrective action when investigating Tesla nearly a decade earlier.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Tesla\u2019s argument is two-fold. First, for the term \u201cAutopilot,\u201d it argues that because the regulatory body investigated the automaker in 2014 over the use of its branding and decided not to take action, it implied the permitted use of the term. As for the term \u201cself-driving,\u201d Tesla says that because the DMV did not include clauses to prohibit the use of the term \u201cself-driving\u201d in draft regulations surrounding vehicle autonomy regulations, it implied that Tesla could continue using its \u201cFull Self-Driving\u201d branding.<\/p>\n
“The DMV chose not to take any action against Tesla or otherwise communicate to Tesla that its advertising or use of these brand names was or might be problematic,” wrote Tesla in its response.<\/p>\n
Last year, the California DMV filed two complaints with the California Office of Administrative Hearings. The complaints alleged that Tesla made \u201cuntrue or misleading\u201d claims about its vehicles\u2019 autonomous capabilities present in its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving driver assistance software suites. Specifically, it referenced Tesla\u2019s website where a statement is made that claims the FSD \u201cis designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver\u2019s seat\u201d and that it can \u201cnavigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c[Tesla\u2019s] vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles,\u201d wrote the DMV in its 2022 filing against Tesla. \u201cThese advertisements are a deceptive practice.\u201d<\/p>\n
Despite these public-facing advertisement, Tesla has been fairly transparent about the limitations of its systems, at least to owners. For example, its website now clearly states that Autopilot is a hands-on feature that requires driver attentiveness. Similar statements are in its vehicle manuals, however, the semantics could be confusing to the average car buyer\u2014something that the DMV is using to build its case.<\/p>\n
Tesla removed a clause on its Autopilot support site sometime in September 2019 which noted that it classified Autopilot as a Level 2 automated system. It\u2019s not clear if this was to clean up its site and avoid confusing would-be owners using industry terms, or if it was part of a rebranding strategy for its driver assistance products. And while the automaker has not cited it publicly, previous exchanges between Tesla\u2019s general counsel and the DMV note that FSD Beta, formally called Autosteer on City Streets, will continue to be defined as Level 2 in its final release.<\/p>\n
The California DMV isn\u2019t the only party with a bone to pick with Tesla over its driver assistance software. Some owners have also attempted to sue the automaker in the past over alleged false advertisements. In fact, an owner in the U.K. was recently awarded a $10,000 settlement after taking the automaker to court over its inability to deliver on FSD\u2019s promises since the owner took delivery in 2019. Meanwhile, owners have also complained that Tesla\u2019s progress on its software has regressed since the removal of ultrasonic sensors in 2022, resulting in many vehicles being unable to fully utilize features present in the Enhanced Autopilot suite and above.<\/p>\n