Self-Driving Vehicles: Full Speed Ahead on New Laws and Regulations
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.07.14
Self-driving or autonomous vehicle technology continues to develop rapidly. And as the technology continues to gain speed, new laws and rules are being enacted to attempt to ensure that these vehicles are introduced safely. As of now, most of the legal and regulatory developments for autonomous vehicles have occurred at the state level. Continuing the trend, two states, Michigan and California, recently made major strides in further regulating the technology.
In December 2013, the Michigan legislature near-unanimously passed a bill authorizing the testing of autonomous vehicles. Having called for the passage of such a law during his State of the State Address at the beginning of 2013, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder quickly signed the bill into law. Michigan joins Nevada, California, Florida, and the District of Columbia as the latest state (or district) to enact a law addressing the use of autonomous vehicles.
The Michigan bill expressly prohibits the operation of an automated vehicle in automatic mode, except as authorized for testing purposes. The Michigan bill also includes an exemption from civil liability for vehicle manufacturers for damages resulting from a third party's conversion of the vehicle into an automated vehicle, unless the alleged defect was present in the vehicle when it was manufactured.
The other new key development at the state level was the release of California's proposed regulations for autonomous vehicles. The proposed regulations focus on how autonomous vehicle manufacturers must submit evidence of financial responsibility in the required amount of $5 million, the process for applying for a permit to test autonomous vehicles, and the necessary qualifications and training for autonomous vehicle test drivers. Under the proposal, a test driver would have to either be in physical control or capable of taking over control of the vehicle at all times. The proposed regulations also require the vehicle manufacturer: (i) to report all accidents involving the operation of the vehicles on public roads within ten days, and (ii) to provide an annual report of all instances where the autonomous technology was required to be disengaged during testing because of an imminent safety threat.
The federal government also continues to monitor the development of autonomous vehicle technology. In November 2013, a subcommittee of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing on how autonomous vehicles will shape the future of surface transportation. During the hearing, ranking minority member Eleanor Holmes Norton, representing the District of Columbia, argued that as autonomous cars continue to be engineered, the government will learn from experience what regulations are needed. NHTSA Administrator David Strickland, who recently resigned from the agency, agreed with this sentiment and further observed that the agency would likely shift from imposing performance standards, which are not as useful for electronic systems, to process standards to avoid stifling innovation.
While the testing of fully autonomous vehicles is ongoing, NHTSA remains focused on the developments in this new technology, particularly vehicle to vehicle communications and crash avoidance technologies. NHTSA is also focusing on less comprehensive types of automation or function-specific automation. For example, NHTSA had planned to announce decisions by the end of 2013 on whether to regulate or even mandate brakes that automatically engage if a vehicle detects that a crash is about to occur. While the year ended without an announcement, the agency confirmed that it continues to deliberate and will decide how to proceed soon.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
