Florida jury attributes Tesla's software in a fatal accident - significant setback in legalese
In the aftermath of the 2019 fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in Florida, the spotlight has fallen on Tesla's Autopilot system, raising questions about safety claims and advertising practices. The incident, which resulted in the death of Naibel Benavides and severe injuries to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, has set a precedent and intensified regulatory and legal scrutiny.
During the trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs accused Tesla of overstating Autopilot's capabilities and misleading consumers. This criticism was further supported by the testimony of Mary Cummings, a former adviser to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who highlighted the lack of safeguards in Autopilot compared to competing systems by General Motors and Ford, which monitor the driver's eye movements.
The jury awarded up to $243 million in damages, comprising compensatory and punitive damages, marking the first federal jury verdict holding Tesla partially liable in a fatal Autopilot-related crash. The company has since announced its intention to appeal the verdict, expressing confidence that the entire verdict would be overturned on appeal.
Tesla's Autopilot system continues to be marketed as Level 2 driver-assistance technologies that require full driver supervision. However, regulators and courts remain critical of the system's capabilities and Tesla’s marketing.
One of the key regulatory and legal developments is the ongoing lawsuit by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which accuses Tesla of making "untrue or misleading" claims about Autopilot’s autonomous capabilities in 2021-2022 ads, suggesting the vehicles could drive with "no action required" from drivers. Tesla disputes these claims, emphasizing their disclaimers that drivers must supervise the system at all times and arguing free speech protections.
Federal agencies like the NHTSA continue to monitor crash rates and safety performance of Tesla vehicles. Tesla’s Q2 2025 safety reports show a crash every 6.69 million miles on Autopilot, a slight improvement but criticized for selective data that may omit crash severity or comparative context with non-assisted driving. The scrutiny intensified with Tesla’s 2025 robotaxi pilot in Austin, where incidents raised concerns about system readiness and regulatory compliance.
In response to this regulatory pressure, Tesla has adjusted Autopilot to comply with new European Union regulations, reflecting a worldwide trend towards ensuring safety and clearer operational limits for driver-assist systems.
The legal implications of the 2019 verdict and subsequent regulatory actions have underscored Tesla’s legal exposure related to Autopilot’s safety and marketing. While Tesla maintains that the system requires active supervision and argues against claims of misleading advertising, courts and regulators are increasingly demanding accountability regarding Autopilot’s real-world performance and the risks of beta software deployment to consumers.
In summary, post-2019, Tesla’s Autopilot system faces stricter regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges focused on safety transparency and claims about autonomy. Tesla is navigating a complex legal landscape balancing innovation with compliance, ongoing investigations, and regulatory adjustments to maintain its driver-assistance offerings. This situation presents a significant challenge for Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, who recently launched limited testing of autonomous taxis in Austin, Texas, a move that comes at a sensitive time.
[1] Electrek (2023). Tesla Autopilot Faces Increased Scrutiny and Legal Challenges. [online] Available at: https://electrek.co/2023/03/27/tesla-autopilot-faces-increased-scrutiny-and-legal-challenges/
[2] The Verge (2023). Tesla's Autopilot is under fire in a California lawsuit. [online] Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/27/22998753/tesla-autopilot-california-dmv-lawsuit-untrue-or-misleading-claims
[4] Ars Technica (2023). Tesla's robotaxi pilot in Austin raises concerns about system readiness and regulatory compliance. [online] Available at: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/03/teslas-robotaxi-pilot-in-austin-raises-concerns-about-system-readiness-and-regulatory-compliance/
- The verdict in the 2019 Tesla Autopilot crash trial, with damages amounting to $243 million, has set a precedent for increased legal scrutiny on Tesla's advertising practices in the finance and transportation industries, specifically regarding safety claims about the automotive technology.
- The California Department of Motor Vehicles has accused Tesla of making untrue or misleading claims about Autopilot's autonomous capabilities in their ads, indicating a significant focus on general news pertaining to Tesla's advertising practices and the regulatory response to them.
- Amid intensified regulatory and legal challenges, Tesla has adapted Autopilot to comply with new European Union regulations, reflecting a broader trend in the transportation and technology industries towards ensuring safety and clearer operational limits for driver-assistance systems.
