Tesla has been given a 90-day period to correct and refine the language used in its advertising materials, or it will face a temporary 30-day suspension that would bar the company from conducting vehicle sales within California. This information was announced during a media briefing held on Tuesday by Steve Gordon, who currently serves as the Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The development follows a series of legal proceedings and regulatory reviews intended to determine whether the electric vehicle manufacturer has been overstating the autonomous capabilities of its cars and thereby misleading potential buyers about their actual level of automation.
On November 21, Administrative Law Judge Juliet E. Cox reached a proposed decision concerning Tesla’s marketing practices—specifically addressing whether the company had created a public impression that its vehicles could drive themselves with greater independence than is technologically possible. Judge Cox subsequently submitted this proposed ruling to the DMV for official consideration. However, the complete documentation containing her findings has not been made publicly accessible. According to state officials, it will remain confidential until December 22, at which time it may be released or summarized for public record depending on the DMV’s course of action.
During the briefing, Director Gordon explained in detail that Judge Cox’s recommendation included the imposition of a suspension on both Tesla’s license to sell and its license to manufacture vehicles within California. Nonetheless, after internal deliberation, the DMV opted not to immediately suspend Tesla’s manufacturing operations. Instead, the agency decided to delay enforcement of the sales suspension, granting a 90‑day window as a temporary stay during which Tesla must revise its promotional materials and address the identified concerns about its advertising language.
This official notice to Tesla arrives in the wake of a comprehensive weeklong hearing held in July at an administrative court located in Oakland. That hearing stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit filed by the California DMV, which accused the automaker of systematically misleading consumers. The agency argued that Tesla’s use of terms such as “Full Self-Driving” and “Autopilot” in its promotional materials gave an inaccurate impression of the vehicles’ autonomous capabilities. According to the DMV’s complaint, Tesla’s advertisements may have caused customers to believe that their cars possessed the ability to operate without driver involvement under all circumstances—a level of functionality that current technology does not yet support.
Throughout the hearing, Tesla’s legal representatives vigorously denied these accusations. They asserted that the company has consistently presented truthful information, never concealing the fact that its vehicles require driver supervision at all times. The DMV, however, pressed for sanctions, requesting a minimum 30-day suspension of Tesla’s license to sell vehicles in California and the potential awarding of financial restitution to aggrieved consumers.
The complaint cited specific examples of Tesla’s advertising language from 2021 and 2022. In those materials, the company’s website described its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system as a technology “designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.” Regulators contended that such statements could mislead buyers into assuming that FSD-enabled vehicles could perform full driving tasks autonomously, even though operational limitations were still in place.
During the July proceedings, Tesla’s attorneys countered these claims by emphasizing that the company repeatedly warns users not to overestimate the technology’s capability. They noted that all communications—including user manuals and purchase agreements—explicitly inform customers that they cannot fully rely on Autopilot or FSD systems for driving without human attention. Attorney Matthew Benedetto, representing Tesla’s legal team, clarified during testimony that cars equipped with Full Self-Driving features “are at present not capable of driving themselves.” His statement reinforced Tesla’s position that while the company continues to innovate in driver-assistance technologies, it has not misrepresented their current stage of development.
As of press time, Tesla declined to immediately issue a formal response to the DMV’s announcement or to questions from the media regarding potential revisions to its marketing approach. The situation remains fluid, with more information expected to emerge after the DMV’s final review later this year. Observers across the automotive and technology sectors are closely monitoring the case, as its outcome could set an important precedent for how companies describe advanced vehicle automation features in consumer advertising.
This is an evolving story, and additional updates are anticipated as California’s regulatory process advances. Interested parties are advised to check back for forthcoming developments and official statements from both the DMV and Tesla.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-rules-tesla-misled-consumers-dmv-california-2025-10
