Update, August 19, 2026: On February 17, 2026 the California DMV said Tesla had taken the required corrective action and would avoid the stayed 30-day dealer/manufacturer suspensions. See the DMV’s later corrective-action release. The December 16 finding was about marketing names, not a ban on selling FSD software or a Robotaxi permit.
On December 16, 2025 the California Department of Motor Vehicles issued a decision in Tesla’s administrative case (Nos. 21-02188 and 21-02189). The DMV adopted an administrative law judge’s finding that Tesla’s use of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving Capability” in vehicle marketing was misleading and violated state law. The ALJ had proposed 30-day suspensions of Tesla’s manufacturer and dealer licenses. The DMV adopted the violation findings but stayed the manufacturer-license suspension and gave Tesla a deadline (60 days in the DMV statement; Reuters also described a 90-day stay on the sales license) to fix Autopilot wording or face a 30-day dealer-license hit. Primary source: the DMV’s December 16 news release. Reuters, CNBC, and ABC7 reported it the same week.
This is an advertising/dealer-license case. Tesla still sold cars in California that week. FSD (Supervised) as a software SKU is a different product from a CPUC/DMV driverless-deployment permit. Do not read this as “California banned FSD.”
Key facts
- Who: California DMV, adopting an ALJ proposed decision Tesla had been fighting since 2021-era complaints.
- What was found: “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving Capability” were misleading under California law.
- What penalty was on the table: 30-day manufacturer and dealer license suspensions.
- What happened immediately: DMV stayed the manufacturer suspension and gave Tesla a short window to change Autopilot marketing or risk the dealer-license suspension.
- What this is not: A finding that FSD cannot be sold as Supervised software, or a Robotaxi deployment denial.
Names vs the software
The DMV’s point is ordinary consumer law: a driver-assistance system that still needs a human should not sound like a chauffeur. Tesla had already added “(Supervised)” on many FSD pages. The December order said that was not enough for the word Autopilot in California ads. Later Tesla dropped Autopilot in California marketing and kept Supervised on FSD, according to follow-up coverage before the February 2026 close-out.
The same week Tesla posted that California sales were not paused. Tesery’s sibling note is Tesla’s Dec. 17 “no sales suspension” statement. The later close-out is Tesery’s February 2026 compliance piece. Tesla later sued the DMV and issued a software rename (Navigate on Autopilot → Autosteer). California’s robotaxi-ticket law is a different statute.
FAQ
Could Tesla not sell cars in California in December 2025?
Sales continued. The 30-day dealer-license suspension was stayed while Tesla changed ads.
Did the DMV ban Full Self-Driving?
It banned Tesla from marketing the names in a way the ALJ called misleading. The software feature is a separate question.
Is this the autonomous-vehicle testing permit?
No. AV testing/deployment permits are a different DMV list.
For California owners: what you bought is still Supervised driver assistance. The name on the website may have changed; your duty to watch the road did not.
Featured photo: California State Capitol in Sacramento (file photo of the seat of state government, not a DMV hearing still). Image via Wikimedia Commons.
Related: Tesla said sales were not suspended · Feb. 2026 DMV close-out · Tesla sued the DMV · 2026.2.9 Autosteer rename
