LURAH LOWERY | Repairer Driven News | 1/15/2026

Last week, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade held a hearing to consider the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act, a bill aimed at ensuring vehicle owners and independent repair shops have access to the diagnostic, maintenance, and repair data needed to service modern cars. Supporters, including aftermarket groups and insurers, argued that as vehicles become increasingly software-driven, restricted access to that data threatens competition, raises repair costs, and limits consumer choice, while opponents from major automakers warn it could disrupt the industry and raise safety or intellectual property concerns. The testimony highlighted deep divisions over how to balance consumer repair rights with industry safeguards as Congress weighs how to modernize motor vehicle policy.

China’s industry ministry revises EV safety rules for automakers

Investing .com | 1/21/2026

China’s industry ministry announced new rules for approving automakers and vehicles, effective in 2027, emphasizing electric vehicle safety monitoring. Manufacturers must create platforms to track the safety status of their electric vehicles, with the data used to enhance vehicle design and performance.

Canada’s Industry Minister Meets Auto Giants BYD, Chery in Beijing

 CLÁUDIO AFONSO | EV | 1/18/2026

Canada’s Industry Minister Mélanie Joly met with Chinese automakers BYD and Chery during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing to finalize a trade deal. The agreement allows up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles per year at a reduced tariff of 6.1%. A new Auto Plan, expected next month, may let Chinese firms assemble vehicles in Canada under certain conditions. The deal has faced criticism from US officials but aims to boost Canada’s manufacturing and export potential.

Hyundai hires Tesla Autopilot pioneer for top driverless role

PAUL MYLES | Wards Auto | 1/16/2026

Hyundai Motor Group has hired a former Tesla Autopilot pioneer to lead its autonomous driving and software efforts, signaling a renewed push into driverless technology. The executive, who helped build Tesla’s early Autopilot vision system and later worked on autonomous platforms at Nvidia, will oversee Hyundai’s advanced vehicle and software strategy, including its global software unit, 42dot, as the automaker looks to accelerate development of next-generation driver-assist and autonomy features.

Tesla granted more time in US investigation into its self-driving tech

MATT OTT | AP News | 1/16/2026

U.S. auto safety regulators have granted Tesla a five-week extension to respond to an investigation into allegations that its “Full Self-Driving” system has violated traffic laws, including running red lights and driving into oncoming lanes, with at least 62 reported incidents across 2.9 million vehicles. Regulators say some drivers received no warning before erratic behavior, while Tesla argues it has consistently told users that FSD is only a Level 2 driver-assistance system requiring full driver attention. The probe comes as Tesla faces declining vehicle sales and increased competition, heightening pressure on the company to demonstrate progress with FSD and its long-promised autonomous ambitions.

DAVID ZIPPER | Fast Company | 12/19/2025

Tesla’s controversial “Mad Max mode,” a setting in its Full Self-Driving (FSD) driver-assist system that encourages aggressive, high-speed driving, highlights a growing problem for autonomous and advanced driver-assist technologies. The mode, whose name nods to the film franchise, can push cars to exceed posted speed limits, dart through traffic, and make bold lane changes, raising safety concerns as regulators and researchers watch closely. While FSD still legally requires an attentive human driver, the behavior encouraged by Mad Max mode blurs the line between supervised assistance and risky automated driving, prompting scrutiny from safety authorities.

Tesla isn’t alone. Other autonomous systems Waymo’s robotaxis, are also being tuned to emulate human driving behaviors, sometimes bending or ignoring traffic laws to match real-world expectations. As companies compete, the questions remain of how much traffic law flexibility is acceptable, and who bears responsibility when machines break the rules

Tesla faces 30-day car sale ban for misleading use of ‘Autopilot’ branding, CA DMV warns

TIM JOHNS | ABC 7 News | 12/17/2025

California’s DMV has warned Tesla it could face a 30-day ban on selling vehicles in the state if it doesn’t change how it markets Autopilot and FSD. Regulators say the terminology misleads consumers into believing the systems are fully autonomous, despite requiring constant driver supervision, and follows a court ruling finding Tesla’s advertising violates state law. Tesla disputes the warning, calling it regulatory overreach, but the move signals escalating scrutiny over how automakers describe advanced driver-assist technologies an how those descriptions shape driver expectations and safety.

Ford’s $19.5 billion EV writedown: five things to know

MIKE COLIAS | Reuters | 12/16/2025

Ford Motor announced a $19.5 billion charge on electric vehicle investments, reflecting a shift from focusing on EVs to conventional gas models and hybrids. The charge includes costs for canceled EV models, a failed battery joint venture, and other expenses. Ford is scrapping future electric vehicles to focus on affordable models and hybrid growth, aiming for 50% of sales by 2030. The company will also invest $2 billion to create battery storage for energy services.

16 US states sue federal government after Trump suspends EV charging programs

DAVID SHEPARDSON | Reuters | 12/16/2025

A group of 16 states and the District of Columbia have sued the U. S. government after President Trump’s administration suspended two electric vehicle charging programs. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that new funding was refused under these programs from a $1 trillion infrastructure law. The lawsuit claims Trump’s actions jeopardize $1.8 billion in federal awards for state and local governments and hinder efforts against air pollution and climate change.

BYD increases EV battery warranty to 8 years/250,000 km, surpassing Tesla’s

FRED LAMBERT | Electrek | 12/15/2025

BYD is enhancing confidence in its electric vehicles in Europe by extending its battery warranty to 8 years or 250,000 km, significantly more than the industry standard. This new policy pressures competitors like Tesla and Volkswagen to increase their warranty offers. Previously, BYD’s warranty was around 8 years or 160,000 km. The new coverage targets high-mileage users and is backed by BYD’s Blade Battery technology, known for its long cycle life. BYD is also expanding its presence in Europe with new vehicle launches.

Why This Matters for Insurers and Mobility Stakeholders

This case underscores how emerging vehicle technologies are reshaping liability risk, coverage exposure, and regulatory expectations. Key questions raised during the trial include:

• Liability Allocation: How should responsibility be split between drivers and manufacturers when advanced driver-assistance systems are in use?
• Safety Claims and Marketing: To what extent do public statements by automakers influence juror perceptions of reasonable reliance?
• Data Integrity: What obligations do manufacturers have to preserve and disclose crash data to insurers, regulators, and courts?
• Risk Culture: How should insurers and mobility companies assess the reliability of driver-assist systems when underwriting or litigating claims?

Trial Highlights with Industry Impact

• Expert Testimony: Former NHTSA advisor Dr. Mary Cummings detailed Autopilot’s limitations and failures in monitoring driver engagement.
• Digital Forensics: Plaintiffs’ experts retrieved previously unavailable Autopilot ECU data, allowing reconstruction of crash dynamics.
• Corporate Messaging: Elon Musk’s public statements about “Level 5 hardware” and Autopilot safety were admitted at trial and weighed against Tesla’s own engineers’ testimony.

The Verdict

The jury awarded:

• $123.1 million to survivor Dillon Angulo
• $119.4 million to the Estate of Naibel Benavides
  This included $200 million in punitive damages, signaling how jurors view accountability in the age of automation.

Tesla had earlier rejected $60 million in settlement proposals. By awarding more than four times that amount, the jury set a clear precedent for how risks tied to emerging vehicle technologies will be judged in court.

Why Nelson Law LLC

At Nelson Law LLC, we bring deep expertise at the intersection of mobility technology, product liability, and insurance risk. We help insurers, manufacturers, and regulators understand what verdicts like Benavides v. Tesla mean for claims, litigation strategy, underwriting, and regulatory compliance.

Access the full trial record and summary here

If your company is navigating claims or policy decisions involving advanced vehicle technologies, Nelson Law LLC can help you anticipate risks, interpret liability trends, and craft strategies that protect your business.

The jury ruled that Tesla was partly responsible for the crash—finding the company 33% liable—and required Tesla to pay all punitive damages. This marked the first time a U.S. jury held Tesla financially accountable for Autopilot’s role in a deadly crash.

What the Case Was About

• The Crash: Driver George McGee was distracted while using Autopilot, missed a stop sign at high speed, and crashed.
• The Claims: The victims’ families argued Tesla’s marketing exaggerated Autopilot’s abilities, encouraging over-reliance. They also pointed to missing crash data and a lack of safety features like better driver-monitoring and road-restriction tools.
• Tesla’s Defense: Tesla argued the crash was caused entirely by McGee’s distraction and speeding. They stressed that Autopilot was only meant as a driver-assist tool, not full self-driving.

Why This Matters

This case highlights the risks that come with advanced driver-assistance systems and the way they are marketed to the public. The verdict shows that juries may hold automakers accountable if technology is promoted in a way that leads drivers to place too much trust in it.

For drivers, insurers, and industry leaders, the takeaway is clear:

• Technology doesn’t replace responsibility. Even advanced systems require full driver attention.
• Clear communication matters. How companies talk about these features can affect both public safety and legal liability.
• The law is catching up. Courts are beginning to test whether companies can be held responsible when marketing and safety don’t align.

Looking Ahead

Tesla has said it will appeal the verdict. But regardless of the outcome, this case sets an important precedent in the conversation about vehicle automation, safety, and accountability.

For those who want to explore the case in greater depth, we’ve provided a detailed [Case Summary PDF] prepared by Nelson Law LLC, which includes the court’s rulings, key testimony, and trial timeline.

At Nelson Law LLC, we help clients, insurers, and industry professionals understand these fast-moving legal and technological issues. Our goal is to provide clarity on how cases like this shape the future of mobility and liability.