Administrative law and autonomous vehicles regulation
🔍 Overview: Administrative Law & Autonomous Vehicles
Administrative law governs how government agencies create, enforce, and interpret regulations. In the context of autonomous vehicles, this includes:
Rulemaking: Agencies define safety standards, software certification, testing protocols, etc.
Enforcement: Agencies investigate accidents, enforce safety violations, and penalize non-compliance.
Adjudication: Agencies may conduct hearings or investigations regarding violations or licensing.
Reviewability: Courts may review agency decisions to ensure legality, fairness, and consistency with enabling statutes.
Key Agencies:
In the U.S.: NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), FTC (Federal Trade Commission), and state-level DMVs.
Globally: UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), EU Commission, etc.
📚 Case 1: Stephen Banner v. Tesla, Inc. (Florida, 2019–2023)
🔹Facts:
Stephen Banner died when his Tesla Model 3, operating in Autopilot mode, collided with a truck that was crossing its path. The crash resembled a previous fatal crash in 2016 involving similar circumstances.
🔹Legal and Administrative Law Issues:
Negligence and product liability: Did Tesla fail to warn users or update Autopilot features to avoid known dangers?
Regulatory oversight: NHTSA and NTSB investigated the crash and found the system lacked proper safeguards.
Agency discretion: Critics argued NHTSA was too slow in enforcing AV safety standards.
🔹Administrative Law Relevance:
Shows a regulatory gap: Tesla's vehicles were not fully autonomous, yet drivers relied on the system as if they were.
The case highlights the need for administrative agencies to define operational design domains (ODD) more clearly and regulate software updates as part of safety oversight.
Court allowed evidence that Tesla knew about Autopilot defects, raising administrative implications for agency investigation processes.
📚 Case 2: Walter Huang v. Tesla, Inc. (California, 2018–2024)
🔹Facts:
Walter Huang, an Apple engineer, was killed when his Tesla Model X, operating on Autopilot, crashed into a highway divider. The system had trouble recognizing the divider, and Huang may have been distracted.
🔹Legal Issues:
Product design: Whether the Autopilot was defectively designed.
Failure to warn: Whether Tesla adequately warned drivers not to overly rely on Autopilot.
NTSB Investigation: NTSB faulted both Tesla (system limitations) and Huang (driver inattention), as well as poor lane markings.
🔹Administrative Law Relevance:
NTSB’s investigation brought attention to the lack of clear federal standards for driver-monitoring systems in AVs.
The incident pressured NHTSA to consider mandatory safeguards such as driver monitoring, lane detection, and geofencing.
Highlights the inter-agency roles in regulating AVs: NHTSA for enforcement, NTSB for investigations, and FTC for misleading advertising.
📚 Case 3: Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc. (California, 2019–2023)
🔹Facts:
Justine Hsu claimed her Tesla's Autopilot caused the vehicle to swerve into a curb, deploying airbags and causing injury.
🔹Legal Claims:
Design defect and negligence.
Tesla misrepresented Autopilot’s capabilities.
Airbag allegedly deployed improperly.
🔹Outcome:
The jury rejected all claims, siding with Tesla. They accepted that the Autopilot system functioned within its described limitations, and the driver misused it.
🔹Administrative Law Relevance:
Emphasized the role of disclosures and disclaimers in regulatory compliance.
Courts examined whether Tesla had complied with NHTSA standards and disclosures.
The case reflects a court’s deference to agency standards: if Tesla complied with NHTSA’s technical guidelines, the product might not be found defective.
📚 Case 4: Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000)
🔹Facts:
Alexis Geier was injured in a 1987 Honda Accord that lacked a driver-side airbag. Her lawsuit claimed Honda was negligent for not installing airbags.
🔹Issue:
FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) 208 allowed manufacturers to phase in passive restraints like airbags. Geier’s lawsuit, if successful, would impose stricter obligations than federal law.
🔹Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the state law was preempted by federal regulation. Allowing the lawsuit would conflict with the federal policy of phased-in adoption.
🔹Relevance to AV Regulation:
Establishes that federal safety standards may preempt state tort law if the latter undermines regulatory objectives.
Important for AVs: If NHTSA allows “level 2 automation,” then states may not impose stricter operational standards unless Congress allows.
Limits state or individual attempts to impose liability when manufacturers comply with federal standards.
📚 Case 5: NHTSA vs. Tesla – Safety Probe into Autopilot (2021–2023)
🔹Facts:
NHTSA opened a formal investigation into over a dozen crashes involving Tesla vehicles with Autopilot engaged, especially those involving emergency vehicles.
🔹Agency Actions:
Engineering analysis phase began to determine if recall or regulation changes were needed.
Data demands were made to Tesla about system performance, limitations, updates, and driver behavior monitoring.
🔹Administrative Law Relevance:
Demonstrates agency investigative authority under administrative law.
Tesla was compelled under administrative rules to provide internal data.
Reflects agency discretion in whether to mandate recalls or issue new rules.
📚 Case 6: EU Regulation 2022/1426 – Type Approval for AVs in the EU
🔹Background:
EU implemented Regulation 2022/1426 for the type approval of fully autonomous vehicles (Level 4/5). The regulation requires:
Functional safety testing.
Cybersecurity compliance.
Monitoring of software updates.
Operational Design Domain (ODD) limitations.
🔹Relevance:
This is an administrative regulation, not a court case, but it plays a similar role.
The regulation standardizes how AVs are certified in the EU.
It reflects core administrative law functions: rulemaking, enforcement, and judicial review.
🔹Hypothetical Case Application:
If an AV certified under 2022/1426 causes harm and a member state tries to impose additional local restrictions, the manufacturer can challenge the local regulation under EU law for violating harmonized standards—similar to preemption in U.S. law.
📚 Case 7: Waymo (Alphabet) v. California DMV – Data Transparency Dispute (2020)
🔹Facts:
California DMV requires AV manufacturers to submit annual disengagement reports (i.e., when the human takes over from the AV system). Waymo objected to disclosing detailed data, citing trade secrets.
🔹Issue:
Balancing transparency and public interest with trade secret protection.
🔹Administrative Law Relevance:
Raises issues under Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) and public access to regulatory filings.
Demonstrates the tension between agency transparency and corporate confidentiality.
DMV must adjudicate whether to redact or release documents – a classic administrative adjudication role.
🔍 Summary of Administrative Law Themes in AV Regulation
| Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Rulemaking Authority | Agencies set technical and safety standards (e.g., NHTSA, UNECE, EU Commission). |
| Preemption | Federal AV rules can override state/local tort claims (e.g., Geier case). |
| Enforcement Powers | Agencies can investigate, compel disclosures, and mandate recalls (e.g., NHTSA). |
| Licensing / Certification | AVs must comply with type approval or software update protocols. |
| Transparency vs. Confidentiality | Conflict between FOIA-type access and corporate trade secrets (e.g., Waymo case). |
| Judicial Review | Courts may review agency actions for being arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. |
| Liability Despite Compliance | Regulatory compliance does not always shield manufacturers from liability. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments