Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. For these purposes, existing law defines autonomous vehicle.

This bill would prohibit require the manufacturer of an automobile in this state from requiring or providing a software update that removes, disables, or materially restricts a drivers ability to manually engage or disengage an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle that was available at the time of the vehicles original retail sale or requires a driver to engage an advanced autonomous driving system as a condition of operating a vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available. advanced driver assistance system, or an automobile equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, to ensure a driver is able to disable or disengage either an advanced driver assistance system or autonomous technology as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available. The bill would define advanced autonomous driving driver assistance system for these purposes. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to bring a civil action to enforce those prohibitions and would authorize a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per violation, as specified. The bill would specify that a violation of those prohibitions is not an unlawful business practice. The bill would also make technical and conforming changes.

Existing law requires the department, upon application for an original drivers license, to require an examination of the applicant. Existing law requires the examination to test, among other things, the applicants knowledge and understanding of the provisions of the Vehicle Code governing the operation of vehicles upon the highways, an actual demonstration of the applicants ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control in operating a motor vehicle by driving it under the supervision of an examining officer, and a test of the applicants hearing and eyesight, as specified.

This bill would require the department, at the next regularly scheduled revision of the drivers license examination or demonstration of an applicants ability to drive, to consider adding one or more questions that pertain to levels of advanced autonomous driving driver assistance systems.

The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, followed by other factors the Insurance Commissioner adopts by regulation. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a ²/₃ vote.

This bill would prohibit an admitted insurer from increasing the premium or rate for automobile insurance based solely or partially on specified factors, including an insureds decision to not engage or activate advanced autonomous driving systems, as defined. The bill would also prohibit an insurer from requiring the use of these systems as a condition of obtaining or renewing coverage and from applying surcharges or fees to nonusers that do not apply to users of those systems. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose administrative penalties, not to exceed $10,000 per violation after notice and a hearing, and would authorize a policyholder to bring a private right of action for a violation of these provisions. The bill would make other related changes.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1315

Author:(Cabaldon)

As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill requires the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or an automobile equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, ensure a driver is able to disable or disengage either an advanced driver assistance system or autonomous technology as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available and specifies that failure to do is subject to a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney may bring a civil action to enforce the provisions of this bill with a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per violation. Provides that each material software update deployed in violation of this section constitutes a separate violation.
2. Provides that a violation of this provision is not an infraction or an unlawful business practice under section 17200 of the Business Code.
3. Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), at the next regularly scheduled update of the driver's exam, to consider adding specific questions about driver assistance systems, the limitations of those systems and the obligation of a driver who uses those systems.

COMMENTS

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International is a U.S. based professional association of engineers. SAE International's Taxonomy and Definition for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles have become the accepted engineering definitions for the different levels of automation with National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). SAE has designated six different levels of Automated Vehicles (AVs):

Level 0: The human driver does all the driving.

Level 1: An advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) on the vehicle can sometimes assist the human driver with either steering or braking/accelerating, but not both simultaneously. An example includes adaptive cruise control.

Level 2: ADAS on the vehicle control both steering and braking/accelerating simultaneously under some circumstances.  The human driver must pay full attention ("monitor the driving environment") at all times and perform the rest of the driving task. Examples include Tesla's Autopilot and Cadillac Super Cruise.

Level 3: An ADAS on the vehicle performs all aspects of the driving task under some circumstances. In those circumstances, the human driver must be ready to take back control at any time when the ADAS requests the human driver to do so.  In all other circumstances, the human driver performs the driving task.

Level 4: ADAS on the vehicle performs all driving tasks and monitors the driving environment – essentially, does all the driving – in certain circumstances. Humans need not pay attention in those circumstances.

Level 5: ADAS on the vehicle does all the driving in all circumstances.  The human occupants are passengers and do not need to be involved in driving.

Level 2 systems require the driver to pay active attention to the road at all times. Level 3 systems allow the driver to completely disengage from the driving task until the vehicle requests the human to take back control. Experts question whether humans can safely transition between these states.

Experts and some AV developers have questioned whether Level 3 vehicles are safe at all, as it creates a split responsibility between drivers and machines. In October of 2015, Google released a report on its experiences with its driverless technology. In 2012, several Google employees were allowed to use Google’s vehicles on autonomous mode for the freeway portion of their commute to work. Every employee was warned that the car is in its beginning stage, and they should pay attention 100% of the time. Each car was equipped with a video camera inside that would film the passengers.

Despite Google's instructions, videos showed that some drivers completely turned away from the driving seat to do things like search for a cell-phone charger, while others simply relaxed. Engineers call this behavior automation bias. Google stated in their report: "We saw human nature at work: people trust technology very quickly once they see that it works. As a result, it's difficult for them to dip in and out of the task of driving when they are encouraged to switch off and relax."

Waymo, Google's automated vehicle arm, has publicly stated they will not be releasing Level 3 vehicles out of safety concerns that drivers may fall asleep while systems are operating, placing the driver and other users at risk.

Research at Virginia Tech University sponsored by General Motors (GM) and the Federal Highway Administration found similar results. Twelve drivers were given vehicles with adaptive cruise control that handled a car’s steering and breaking and put on a test track. Drivers were provided with reading material, food, drinks and entertainment media. A passenger joined them and was watching a DVD during the test drive. 58% of drivers watched the DVD for some time during the three-hour trip. 25% of the drivers read--increasing their risk of a car crash by 3.4 times. Overall, drivers were estimated to be looking away from the road about 33% of the time during the course of the three-hour trip.

Vehicle manufacturers have developed driver monitoring systems for Level 2 vehicles in order to ensure drivers are paying attention to the road. These systems include cameras to monitor a driver's eyes, weight sensors to ensure a person is in the driver’s seat, and monitors in the steering wheel to ensure the person is still holding it even though the vehicle is performing the driving tasks.

While Level 2 systems are not as advanced as Level 3 systems, the problems identified by Google for Level 3 systems for driver overreliance have been prevalent for users of Level 2 systems. Unlike Level 3 systems, Level 2 systems are not capable of completing all dynamic driving tasks but can complete enough of the dynamic driving tasks where drivers may stop paying attention.

In 2021, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) issued a standing blanket order requiring manufacturers and operators to report to it certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with Level 2 automated driving systems or advanced driver assistance systems. In 2022, 392 crashes were reported, including six fatalities. Tesla accounted for 273 of the crashes.

While much of the existing safety data focuses on driver distraction when automation is active, a parallel consumer protection issue has emerged regarding vehicle autonomy: the risk that manufacturers may use over-the-air software updates to permanently restrict a driver's manual operational control or alter vehicle handling without consumer consent.

According to a recent peer-reviewed study analyzing user behavior published in Frontiers in Psychology (and indexed via the National Institutes of Health), partial automation systems create severe safety hazards rooted in human behavioral adaptation, system complacency, and technological unpredictability.

The study highlights a dangerous operational paradox for systems classified under SAE Level 2, which require constant human supervision:

Over extended use, standard highway automation systems often induce a false sense of security. Drivers frequently succumb to "mind-off" driving, engage in severe secondary distractions (such as texting or sleeping), and intentionally bypass driver-monitoring safety checks using aftermarket steering wheel weights.

System Unpredictability and Increased Workload: Conversely, in complex urban environments, systems like FSD Beta operate with high levels of erratic and unpredictable behavior. Because technology can "do the wrong thing at the worst time," drivers are forced into a state of hyper-vigilance. This constant anticipation of sudden system failures ironically increases the driver's mental and physical workload, stress, and operational fatigue.

Ultimately, the empirical data suggests that current Level 2 driver-monitoring mechanisms are insufficient to mitigate these risks. Partial self-driving systems either promote dangerous driver disengagement on one hand, or introduce acute, unsafe operational stress on the other, creating significant oversight challenges for traffic safety and vehicle code enforcement.

This bill ensures drivers can make the decision on whether they want to use new features sent by automakers.

According to the Author

California has long led the nation in embracing technological innovation, and autonomous vehicles are no exception. As this technology evolves, California must ensure drivers are informed and protected. SB 1315 prohibits automobile manufacturers from providing software updates that remove or restrict a driver's ability to manually operate their own vehicle. No Californian should lose the ability to drive their own car because of a silent software update.

"The bill also requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to consider adding questions about autonomous driving systems to the driver's license examination, to ensure that future drivers understand their legal responsibilities and the limitations of these technologies.

"SB 1315 does not impede autonomous vehicle adoption; rather, it establishes the consumer protections necessary for that adoption to proceed on a data-driven foundation."

Arguments in Support

None on file.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor costs to the DMV.
2. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), General Fund (GF)). Although courts are not funded on a workload basis, increased workload creates pressure on the GF to backfill the TCTF. The Budget Act of 2025-26 included $117.3 million GF to backfill the TCTF for trial court operations.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello, Padilla

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Ahrens, Ávila Farías, Carrillo, Elhawary, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Macedo, Papan, Ransom, Rogers

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ward

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: June 24, 2026

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003529

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1315

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or an automobile equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, ensure a driver is able to disable or disengage either an advanced driver assistance system or autonomous technology as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available and specifies that failure to do is subject to a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation.

The bill also authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), at the next regularly scheduled update of the driver’s exam, to consider adding specific questions about driver assistance systems, the limitations of those systems and the obligation of a driver who uses those systems.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor costs to the DMV.
2. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), General Fund (GF)). Although courts are not funded on a workload basis, increased workload creates pressure on the GF to backfill the TCTF. The Budget Act of 2025-26 included $117.3 million GF to backfill the TCTF for trial court operations.

COMMENTS:

It is common to hear technologically advanced vehicles as “autonomous.” This way of referring to such vehicles might be the result, at least in part, of the way manufacturers market such vehicles, using terms such as “autopilot” to describe some vehicle features.

In any case, state law distinguishes between an “advanced driver assistance system” and “autonomous technology.” Like this bill, California statute defines an advanced driver assistance system by referencing Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International’s “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR2021),” which names such a system as “Level 2” and describes it as one in which automated systems controls both steering and speed, but the human driver must watch the road at all times. In contrast, state law defines an autonomous vehicle as one equipped with autonomous technology allowing increasingly less driver involvement, consistent with SAE’s definitions of a Level 3, Level 4 or Level 5 vehicle.

Whatever one calls such advanced technology, the author wants to ensure a driver is able to turn off such a system and provides penalties that may be levied against a manufacturer that somehow prevents a driver from doing so. The author also suggests the DMV educate drivers about the different technologies available in today’s vehicles, their capabilities and the responsibilities of drivers who may use them.

None seem to mind, as there is neither support for, nor opposition to, this bill. Tesla, however, expresses “concern” with the bill, as follows:

the bill limits a manufacturer’s ability to offer products that enable a customer to choose to convert their traditional, manually driven vehicle to a SAE Level 4 or Level 5 fully autonomous vehicle by requiring that a driver is able to disable or disengage the autonomous technology. Inherently, this requirement presumes the presence of a human driver, which is counter to the nature of Level 4 and 5 systems, as they are designed to operate without any human intervention… we recommend the proposed changes…to mitigate these issues and simplify the intended obligation to allow customers to consent to autonomous technology in which manual operation was previously available.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1315

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Advanced driver assistance systems

SYNOPSIS

Advancements in technology are making cars more and more autonomous. These advancements have resulted in cars becoming less machine-like and now better resemble highly sophisticated computers on wheels. Accordingly, more and more automotive maintenance is being conducted via software updates. As it relates to systems that drivers rely upon for vehicle automation it is imperative that drivers understand the limits of the automated system and what impacts a software might have for automated features.

This bill would prohibit a manufacturer of an automobile in this state from requiring or providing a software update that either removes, disables, or materially restricts a driver’s ability to manually engage or disengage an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle that was available at the time of the vehicle’s original retail sale or requires a driver to engage an advanced autonomous driving system as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available. This should ensure that drivers remain aware of the capabilities of their vehicle. The bill would impose civil penalties for violations of these provisions. The bill also directs the Department of Motor Vehicles to consider amending the driver’s exam to include questions about vehicle automation.

This author-sponsored measure has no registered support or opposition. Telsa Motors has raised “concerns” with the bill and contend it may not do what the author seeks to achieve. Those concerns involved the aspects of the bill that are wholly outside the jurisdiction of this Committee. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Transportation by a vote of 15 to zero.

SUMMARY: Prohibits a manufacturer of an automobile in this state from requiring or providing a software update that either removes, disables, or materially restricts a driver’s ability to manually engage or disengage an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle that was available at the time of the vehicle’s original retail sale or requires a driver to engage an advanced autonomous driving system as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or an automobile equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, shall ensure a driver is able to disable or disengage either an advanced driver assistance system or autonomous technology as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available.
2. Provides that a violation of 1) is not a Vehicle Code infraction.
3. Provides that a violation of 1) is not a violation of the Unfair Business Practice Act.
4. Provides that in lieu of an infraction or an unfair business practice, a violation of 1) is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per violation.
5. Provides that the civil penalties provided in 4) may be sought in a civil action brought by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney.
6. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to consider at the next regularly scheduled revision of the drivers examination to consider adding one or more questions addressing all of the following:
   1. The distinction between the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International’s Level 2 of driving automation, defined in standard J3016 (APR2021), as may be revised, which requires the driver to remain engaged and responsible for the dynamic driving task at all times, and higher levels of driving automation, which assume primary control of vehicle operation;
   2. The legal liability of a driver who operates a vehicle while an advanced driver assistance system is engaged, including their ongoing responsibility to monitor the driving environment and intervene if necessary; or
   3. The limitations of advanced driver assistance systems, including the conditions under which those systems may disengage or request driver intervention.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “autonomous vehicle” as a vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021). (Vehicle Code Section 38750 (a)(2)(A).)
2. Defines “advanced driver assistance system” as a Level 2 of Society of Automotive Engineers International’s Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021). (Vehicle Code Section 28155.)
3. Prohibits a vehicle from being equipped with a device that is specifically designed for, marketed for, or being used for, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with a driver monitoring system that is engaged when drivers are utilizing advanced driver assistance system features or autonomous technology, as defined. (Ibid.)
4. Provides that an autonomous vehicle may be operated on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle being operated if all of the following requirements are met:
   1. The autonomous vehicle is being operated on roads in this state solely by employees, contractors, or other persons designated by the manufacturer of the autonomous technology;
   2. The driver must be seated in the driver’s seat, monitoring the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle, and capable of taking over immediate manual control of the autonomous vehicle in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency;
   3. Prior to the start of testing in this state, the manufacturer performing the testing must obtain an instrument of insurance, surety bond, or proof of self-insurance in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000), and provide evidence of the insurance, surety bond, or self-insurance to the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Vehicle Code Section 38750 (b).)
5. Establishes the Unfair Practices Act to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented. (Business and Professions Code Section 17000 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Autonomous vehicle technology is rapidly expanding. From “autopilot” technologies built into some consumer vehicles to driverless taxis, California’s roadways are increasingly occupied with cars that can largely drive themselves. However, as advanced as these technologies are becoming, they are not yet at a level to fully drive the car without human oversight. Given this, many drivers with cars that have some degree of automation seek to ensure that they can maintain control of the vehicle if necessary. This bill would ensure that auto manufacturers cannot push software updates to cars that override driver control features. The bill applies a civil penalty for non-compliance. In support of the bill the author states:

California has long led the nation in embracing technological innovation, and autonomous vehicles are no exception. As this technology evolves, California must ensure drivers are informed and protected. SB 1315 prohibits automobile manufacturers from providing software updates that remove or restrict a driver's ability to manually operate their own vehicle. No Californian should lose the ability to drive their own car because of a silent software update.

The bill also requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to consider adding questions about autonomous driving systems to the driver's license examination, to ensure that future drivers understand their legal responsibilities and the limitations of these technologies.

SB 1315 does not impede autonomous vehicle adoption; rather, it establishes the consumer protections necessary for that adoption to proceed on a data-driven foundation.

Automated vehicle technology. Automated vehicles are cars that maintain some degree of self-control as prescribed by the Society of Automotive Engineers International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Those definitions rate a car’s autonomy on a scale of one through five with terms of three or higher being deemed autonomous. Levels one and two represent driver assistance technology like lane maintenance assistance and collision avoidance systems.

To operate all of these complex systems, modern cars contain highly sophisticated computers. These computers operate a software suite to assist with the operation of a vehicle. In order to maintain the vehicle more automakers are now utilizing over-the-air software updates to ensure vehicles function and improve the software’s ability. One concern is that the software update may introduce or delete features without the owner’s knowledge. This is especially problematic if the updates add or remove some degree of automation without the owner’s knowledge.

This bill. Prohibits auto manufacturers from providing or requiring software updates to vehicles that remove, disable, or materially restrict a driver’s ability to manually engage or disengage an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle that was available at the time of the vehicle’s original retail sale. For a more comprehensive review of how these updates occur and the damages they pose one should refer to the Committee on Transportation’s analysis of this bill. (Assem. Com. on Trans., Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1315 (2025-26 Reg. Session) as amended June 3, 2026.) This bill also tasks the Department of Motor Vehicles with considering updates to the driver’s exam to test on automated vehicle technology. Finally, and of relevance to the jurisdiction of this Committee, the bill adopts a civil penalty for a violation of the software update provisions not to exceed $25,000 per violation. These penalties can be sought by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or county counsel. The civil enforcement provisions generally mirror the preferred format for bills approved by this Committee and therefore do not need amendments.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Concerns

Tesla Motors, Inc.

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1315

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:June 3, 2026

SENATE VOTE: Not Relevant

SUBJECT: Advanced autonomous driving systems

SUMMARY: Prohibits a manufacturer of an automobile in this state from requiring or providing a software update that either removes, disables, or materially restricts a driver’s ability to manually engage or disengage an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle that was available at the time of the vehicle’s original retail sale or requires a driver to engage an advanced autonomous driving system as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney may bring a civil action to enforce the provisions of this bill with a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per violation. Provides that each material software update deployed in violation of this section constitutes a separate violation.
2. Defines “advanced autonomous driving system” to mean a vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle and that meets the definition of Level 2 or Level 3 of the SAE International’s “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR2021),” as may be revised.
3. Provides that a violation of this provision is not an infraction or an unlawful business practice under section 17200 of the Business Code.
4. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to consider adding one or more questions to the driving examination addressing all of the following:
5. The distinction between SAE international’s Level 2 of driving automation, which requires the driver to remain engaged and responsible for the dynamic driving tasks at all times, and higher levels of driving automation, which assumes primary control of vehicle operation.
6. The legal liability of a driver who operates a vehicle while an advanced driving system is engaged, including their ongoing responsibility to monitor the driving environment and intervene if necessary.
7. The limitations of advanced autonomous driving systems, including the conditions under which those systems may disengage or request driver intervention.
8. Makes various findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “autonomous vehicle” (AV) to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021). (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750).
2. Defines within the Vehicle Code “advanced driver assistance system” to mean Level 2 of SAE International’s Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021) (VEH 28155).
3. Prohibits a vehicle from being equipped with a device that is specifically designed for, marketed for, or being used for, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with a driver monitoring system that is engaged when drivers are utilizing advanced driver assistance system features or autonomous technology, as defined. (VEH 28155).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: SAE International is a U.S. based professional association of engineers. SAE International’s Taxonomy and Definition for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles have become the accepted engineering definitions for the different levels of automation with NHTSA and DMV. SAE has designated six different levels of Automated Vehicles (AVs):

Level 0: The human driver does all the driving.

Level 1: An advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) on the vehicle can sometimes assist the human driver with either steering or braking/accelerating, but not both simultaneously. An example includes adaptive cruise control.

Level 2: ADAS on the vehicle control both steering and braking/accelerating simultaneously under some circumstances.  The human driver must pay full attention (“monitor the driving environment”) at all times and perform the rest of the driving task. Examples include Tesla’s Autopilot and Cadillac Super Cruise.

Level 3: An ADAS on the vehicle performs all aspects of the driving task under some circumstances.  In those circumstances, the human driver must be ready to take back control at any time when the ADAS requests the human driver to do so.  In all other circumstances, the human driver performs the driving task.

Level 4: ADAS on the vehicle performs all driving tasks and monitors the driving environment – essentially, does all the driving – in certain circumstances.  Humans need not pay attention in those circumstances.

Level 5: ADAS on the vehicle does all the driving in all circumstances.  The human occupants are passengers and do not need to be involved in driving.

Level 2 systems require the driver to pay active attention to the road at all times. Level 3 systems allow the driver to completely disengage from the driving task until the vehicle requests the human to take back control. Experts question whether humans can safely transition between these states.

Experts and some AV developers have questioned whether Level 3 vehicles are safe at all, as it creates a split responsibility between drivers and machines. In October of 2015, Google released a report on its experiences with its driverless technology. In 2012, several Google employees were allowed to use Google’s vehicles on autonomous mode for the freeway portion of their commute to work. Every employee was warned that the car is in its beginning stage, and they should pay attention 100% of the time. Each car was equipped with a video camera inside that would film the passengers.

Despite Google’s instructions, videos showed that some drivers completely turned away from the driving seat to do things like search for a cell-phone charger, while others simply relaxed. Engineers call this behavior automation bias. Google stated in their report: “We saw human nature at work: people trust technology very quickly once they see that it works. As a result, it’s difficult for them to dip in and out of the task of driving when they are encouraged to switch off and relax.”

Waymo, Google’s automated vehicle arm, has publicly stated they will not be releasing Level 3 vehicles out of safety concerns that drivers may fall asleep while systems are operating, placing the driver and other users at risk.

Research at Virginia Tech University sponsored by General Motors (GM) and the Federal Highway Administration found similar results. Twelve drivers were given vehicles with adaptive cruise control that handled a car’s steering and breaking and put on a test track. Drivers were provided with reading material, food, drinks and entertainment media. A passenger joined them and was watching a DVD during the test drive. 58% of drivers watched the DVD for some time during the three-hour trip. 25% of the drivers read--increasing their risk of a car crash by 3.4 times. Overall, drivers were estimated to be looking away from the road about 33% of the time during the course of the three-hour trip.

Vehicle manufacturers have developed driver monitoring systems for Level 2 vehicles in order to ensure drivers are paying attention to the road. These systems include cameras to monitor a driver’s eyes, weight sensors to ensure a person is in the driver’s seat, and monitors in the steering wheel to ensure the person is still holding it even though the vehicle is performing the driving tasks.

While Level 2 systems are not as advanced as Level 3 systems, the problems identified by Google for Level 3 systems for driver overreliance have been prevalent for users of Level 2 systems. Unlike Level 3 systems, Level 2 systems are not capable of completing all dynamic driving tasks but can complete enough of the dynamic driving tasks where drivers may stop paying attention.

In 2021, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) issued a standing blanket order requiring manufacturers and operators to report to it certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with Level 2 automated driving systems or advanced driver assistance systems. In 2022, 392 crashes were reported, including six fatalities. Tesla accounted for 273 of the crashes.

While much of the existing safety data focuses on driver distraction when automation is active, a parallel consumer protection issue has emerged regarding vehicle autonomy: the risk that manufacturers may use over-the-air software updates to permanently restrict a driver's manual operational control or alter vehicle handling without consumer consent.

According to the author, California has long led the nation in embracing technological innovation, and autonomous vehicles are no exception. As this technology evolves, California must ensure drivers are informed and protected. SB 1315 prohibits automobile manufacturers from providing software updates that remove or restrict a driver's ability to manually operate their own vehicle. No Californian should lose the ability to drive their own car because of a silent software update.

“The bill also requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to consider adding questions about autonomous driving systems to the driver's license examination, to ensure that future drivers understand their legal responsibilities and the limitations of these technologies.

“SB 1315 does not impede autonomous vehicle adoption; rather, it establishes the consumer protections necessary for that adoption to proceed on a data-driven foundation.”

Committee comments. As the Legislature evaluates regulatory frameworks for highly automated vehicles, a critical consumer safety concern is the documented risk associated with partial driving automation, such as standard Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta. According to a recent peer-reviewed study analyzing user behavior published in Frontiers in Psychology (and indexed via the National Institutes of Health), partial automation systems create severe safety hazards rooted in human behavioral adaptation, system complacency, and technological unpredictability.

The study highlights a dangerous operational paradox for systems classified under SAE Level 2, which require constant human supervision:

Over extended use, standard highway automation systems often induce a false sense of security. Drivers frequently succumb to "mind-off" driving, engage in severe secondary distractions (such as texting or sleeping), and intentionally bypass driver-monitoring safety checks using aftermarket steering wheel weights.

System Unpredictability and Increased Workload: Conversely, in complex urban environments, systems like FSD Beta operate with high levels of erratic and unpredictable behavior. Because technology can "do the wrong thing at the worst time," drivers are forced into a state of hyper-vigilance. This constant anticipation of sudden system failures ironically increases the driver's mental and physical workload, stress, and operational fatigue.

Ultimately, the empirical data suggests that current Level 2 driver-monitoring mechanisms are insufficient to mitigate these risks. Partial self-driving systems either promote dangerous driver disengagement on one hand, or introduce acute, unsafe operational stress on the other, creating significant oversight challenges for traffic safety and vehicle code enforcement.

This bill ensures drivers can make the decision on whether they want to use new features sent by automakers.

However, this bill has some issues the Legislature may want to address. An SAE Level 2 vehicle is not an autonomous vehicle, per the Society of Automotive Engineers, though this bill defines a Level 2 system as an advanced autonomous driving system. Defining it as such would effectively be calling virtually every new vehicle on the road today an autonomous vehicle. Instead, Level 2 vehicles are vehicles with an advanced driver assistance system. The Legislature recognized the danger of conflating the two when it passed SB 1398 (Gonzalez) Chapter 308, Statutes of 2022, which required car dealers or manufacturers that sell vehicles with driver assistance systems to provide the buyer or owner with a consumer notice that describes the functions and limitations of the vehicle. SB 1398 also made it a deceptive business practice to describe a partial automation feature in a manner that implies or would lead a reasonable person to believe the vehicle is autonomous. In December of 2025, the DMV found Tesla in violation of state law for using “full self-driving” and “autopilot” to describe its driving systems.

In addition, some software updates sent by automakers are security updates that are necessary to protect the driver, either by enhancing cyber security or by improving existing functions. Such software updates may be prescribed by NHTSA. Authorizing a user to reject them may put all drivers on the road at risk.

Finally, it is unclear if this bill applies to all vehicle manufacturers that sell vehicles in this state or to vehicle manufacturers who manufacture in this state.

To address these issues, the committee suggests the following amendments that keep in line with the legislative intent of this bill while also permitting necessary software updates:

1. Strike all references to Advanced autonomous driving assist system and replace it with advanced driver assistance system, defined as an SAE level 2 system.
2. Strike VEH 38758 and replace with the following:

38758. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or an automobile equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, shall ensure a driver is able to disable or disengage either an advanced driver assistance system or autonomous technology as a condition of operating the vehicle under a condition in which manual operation was previously available.

Previous Legislation. SB 1313(Ashby) Chapter 604, Statutes of 2024, prohibits vehicles from being equipped with a device that is designed for, or being used for, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with a direct driving monitor system.

SB 1398 (Gonzalez), Chapter 308, Statutes of 2022 requires a dealer or manufacturer of a passenger vehicle that is equipped with any partial driving automation feature to provide the buyer or owner with a notice that provides the name of each feature and clearly describe the functions and limitations of the feature.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1315

Author: Cabaldon (D)

Amended: 4/13/26

Vote: 21

SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/8/26

AYES: Padilla, Niello, Becker, Menjivar, Richardson, Rubio

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 12-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Cortese, Strickland, Archuleta, Arreguín, Blakespear, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grayson, Richardson, Seyarto, Valladares, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Menjivar

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Drive My Car Act

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires an automobile manufacturer to notify the California Department of Insurance (CDI) and automobile insurers of software updates for vehicles equipped with advanced autonomous driving systems, as defined.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Creates CDI, headed by the Insurance Commissioner.
2. Provides that CDI generally regulates the business of insurance, including automobile insurance.
3. Defines “autonomous vehicle” (AV) as a vehicle equipped with technology making it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016.
4. Defines within the Vehicle Code “advanced driver assistance system” (ADAS) as Level 2 of SAE International’s Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016.
5. Prohibits a vehicle from being equipped with a device that is specifically designed, marketed, or used for, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with a driver monitoring system that is engaged when drivers are utilizing advanced driver assistance system features or autonomous technology, as defined.

This bill:

1. Defines “Advanced Autonomous Driving System” as a vehicle system that meets the definition of SAE Level 2, SAE Level 3 (Conditional Driving Automation), SAE Level 4 (High Driving Automation), or SAE Level 5 (Full Driving Automation), as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers International standard J3016, as that standard may be amended from time to time.
2. Provides definitions for vehicles possessing automated driving systems from SAE Level 2 through SAE Level 5, as specified.
3. Requires an automobile manufacturer to notify CDI and automobile insurers of any software updates to vehicle models equipped with an advanced autonomous driving system.
4. Makes related findings and declarations.

Background

AV regulation in California. Under California law, AVs are defined as vehicles that meet SAE Level 3, 4, or 5 standards. This includes any vehicle that, at a minimum, can conduct most driving tasks by itself under certain environmental conditions without human intervention. Importantly, Level 3, 4, and 5 vehicles do not include common vehicle safety features such as automatic breaking, lane keep assist, or adaptive cruise control. Vehicles with these systems are considered Level 2 vehicles under SAE standards, and thus do not qualify as AVs. This extends to what are commonly referred to as “Level 2+” or “Level 2 ADAS” vehicles, that package many of these features together to offer AV-like services.

In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla, Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012) which permitted AVs to operate on public roads for testing by a driver under certain conditions. Since that time, AVs have been regulated by two state government entities. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulates the testing, operation, and deployment of AVs, while the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates commercial robotaxi services. In order for any AV manufacturer to apply for CPUC robotaxi permits, they must first have full DMV permits.

DMV offers two different types of AV permits. The first type is a testing permit, which allows manufacturers to test AVs on California roads for internal research purposes. The second type of permits are deployment permits, that allow manufacturers to deploy AVs on California roads more broadly for both private and commercial use. Currently, the DMV is undergoing new rounds of AV rulemaking. The set of proposed regulations is aimed at authorizing new permit types and tackling existing safety concerns. Primarily, these rules will add a new permit type for heavy-duty vehicles, over 10,000 pounds in gross weight, for commercial purposes. The rules are also focused on expanding data reporting, especially for deployment permits, improving law enforcement interactions with AVs, and requiring proper licensure for safety drivers.

ADAS and ADS. Under SAE AV definitions, there are key differences between each level of vehicular autonomy. Levels 1 and 2 provide ADAS features that offer assistance to a human driver such as lane-keeping assistance, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking. Ultimately, under levels 0-2, these technologies are intended to assist the human driver, require human supervision, and the driver remains responsible for vehicle operation. Under existing law and regulations, levels 0-2 vehicles are not considered AVs. On the other hand, automated driving systems (ADS) are technologies designed to perform the entire dynamic driving task without a human driver. ADS equipped vehicles can operate autonomously under a variety of conditions and are considered vehicles in levels 3 through level 5. Under levels 3 through 5, the ADS system takes full control of the vehicle and the human(s) in the vehicle is/are not completely responsible for the operation of the vehicle.

Vehicle software upgrades and updates. Most contemporary vehicles today possess some form of software to assist with the operation of a vehicle. Based on the vehicle’s SAE classification, the software and hardware in the vehicle will gradually be more complex and sophisticated. For example, with Level 2 ADAS vehicles, software is utilized to enhance the vehicle’s capabilities and safety features. Updates/upgrades may include the following:

1. Improving the vehicle's ability to detect and respond to hazards. By updating the software, the vehicle can learn from its driving behavior and

improve its ability to anticipate and react to potential dangers.

1. Enhancing the vehicle's performance. Software updates can optimize the vehicle’s performance, such as improving the responsiveness of the steering and braking systems.
2. Integrating new technologies.  Upgrades can introduce new technologies and features that were not available in the vehicle's original configuration.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 572 (Gonzalez, 2025). Requires, contingent on repeal of an applicable federal order, a manufacturer of a vehicle with specified advanced driver assistance system technology to report accident data to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 33 (Aguiar-Curry, 2025). Prohibits an autonomous vehicle without a human safety operator from delivering commercial goods directly to a residence or to a business for its use or retail sale, as specified. On the Senate Floor Inactive File.

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry, 2023). Restricts an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation. Vetoed by the Governor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/5/26)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/5/26)

None Received

Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110

5/5/26 15:55:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/21/2026

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill requires an automobile manufacturer to notify the Department of Insurance (DOI) and automobile insurers of software updates for vehicles equipped with advanced autonomous driving systems, as defined.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Creates DOI, headed by the Insurance Commissioner.
2. DOI generally regulates the business of insurance in the state – including automobile insurance, as specified.
3. Defines “autonomous vehicle” (AV) to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021).
4. Defines within the Vehicle Code “advanced driver assistance system” to mean Level 2 of SAE International’s Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021).
5. Prohibits a vehicle from being equipped with a device that is specifically designed for, marketed for, or being used for, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with a driver monitoring system that is engaged when drivers are utilizing advanced driver assistance system features or autonomous technology, as defined.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations pertaining to the advancements in automative technology, including autonomous technologies, and the driver’s ability to choose when to use those technologies when operating a motor vehicle.
2. For purposes of the Insurance Code, defines “Advanced Autonomous Driving System” as, a vehicle system that meets the definition of SAE Level 2, SAE Level 3 (Conditional Driving Automation), SAE Level 4 (High Driving Automation), or SAE Level 5 (Full Driving Automation), as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers International standard J3016, as that standard may be amended from time to time.
3. For purposes of the Insurance Code, provides definitions for vehicles possessing automated driving systems from SAE Level 2 through SAE Level 5, as specified.
4. Requires an automobile manufacturer to notify DOI and automobile insurers of any software updates to vehicle models equipped with an advanced autonomous driving system.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "California has long led the nation in embracing technological innovation, and autonomous vehicles are no exception. The question before the Legislature is not whether self-driving technology will transform how Californians live, but whether California's laws will be positioned to ensure that transformation occurs on terms that protect consumers rather than expose them to financial coercion.

“SB 1315, the Drive My Car Act, requires automobile manufacturers to notify the insurance commissioner and the insurance providers of software updates to their vehicles. This measure starts the conversation on how to prevent automobile manufacturers’ software from limiting a driver's ability to drive.”

1. AV regulation in California. Under California law, AVs are defined as being vehicles that meet SAE Level 3, 4, or 5 standards. This includes any vehicle that, at a minimum, can conduct most driving tasks by itself under certain environmental conditions without human intervention. Importantly, Level 3, 4, and 5 vehicles do not include common vehicle safety features such as automatic breaking, lane keep assist, or adaptive cruise control. Vehicles with these systems are considered Level 2 vehicles under SAE standards, and thus do not qualify as AVs. This extends to what are commonly referred to as “Level 2+” or “Level 2 ADAS” vehicles, that package many of these features together to offer AV-like services.
   
   In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla, Chapter 570) which permitted AVs to operate on public roads for testing by a driver under certain conditions. Since that time, AVs have been regulated by two state government entities. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulates the testing, operation, and deployment of AVs, while the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates commercial robotaxi services. In order for any AV manufacturer to apply for CPUC robotaxi permits, they must first have full DMV permits.
   
   DMV offers two different types of AV permits. The first type is a testing permit, which allows manufacturers to test AVs on California roads for internal research purposes. The second type of permits are deployment permits, that allow manufacturers to deploy AVs on California roads more broadly for both private and commercial use. Currently, DMV is undergoing new rounds of AV rulemaking. The set of proposed regulations is aimed at authorizing new permit types and tackling existing safety concerns. Primarily, these rules will add a new permit type for heavy-duty vehicles, over 10,000 pounds in gross weight, for commercial purposes. The rules are also focused on expanding data reporting, especially for deployment permits, improving law enforcement interactions with AVs, and requiring proper licensure for safety drivers.
2. ADAS and ADS. Under SAE AV definitions, there are key differences between each level of vehicular autonomy. Levels 1 and 2 provide ADAS features that offer assistance to a human driver such as lane-keeping assistance, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking. Ultimately, under levels 0-2, these technologies are intended to assist the human driver, require human supervision, and the driver remains responsible for vehicle operation. Under existing law and regulations, levels 0-2 vehicles are not considered AVs. On the other hand, automated driving systems (ADS) are technologies designed to perform the entire dynamic driving task without a human driver. ADS equipped vehicles can operate autonomously under a variety of conditions and are considered vehicles in levels 3 through level 5. Under levels 3 through 5, the ADS system takes full control of the vehicle and the human(s) in the vehicle is / are not completely responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
3. Vehicle software upgrades and updates. Most modern vehicles today possess some form of software to assist with the operation of a vehicle. Based on the vehicle’s SAE classification, the software (and hardware) in the vehicle will gradually be more complex and sophisticated. For example, with Level 2 ADAS vehicles, software is utilized to enhance the vehicle’s capabilities and safety features. Updates / upgrades may include the following:

• Improving the vehicle's ability to detect and respond to hazards: By updating the software, the vehicle can learn from its driving behavior and  improve its ability to anticipate and react to potential dangers.
• Enhancing the vehicle's performance: Software updates can optimize the vehicle’s performance, such as improving the responsiveness of the steering and braking systems.
• Integrating new technologies: Upgrades can introduce new technologies and features that were not available in the vehicle's original configuration.

The provisions specified in this bill aim to allow DOI and vehicle insurance providers to have a better understanding of the current software and future software enhancements in vehicles that will impact a motorist’s driving behavior. Ultimately, the author asserts that by requiring automobile manufacturers to provide DOI and automobile insurers information on advanced driver assistance / autonomous driving system software in vehicles, this will allow those entities to better understand the overall driving risks motorists will encounter on the road.

1. Double referred. This bill was referred to the Senate Insurance Committee, where it passed out on a 6-0 vote on April 8, 2026.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

April 15, 2026.)

SUPPORT:

None received

OPPOSITION:

American Property Casualty Insurance Association
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE

Senator Stephen Padilla, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 1315 Hearing Date: April 8, 2026

SUBJECT: Drive My Car Act

DIGEST:

Prohibits an admitted insurer writing private passenger automobile insurance from increasing premiums, rates, or any other charges for such policies, based on a driver’s use or lack thereof, of an advanced autonomous driving system. Extends this prohibition to considerations relating to obtaining or retaining insurance coverage. Allows for administrative penalties and a private right of action for violations of the bill’s provisions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides under the Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, also known as Proposition 103, approved by the voters, rules for how auto insurance rates are calculated as well as a system of prior approval of rates, to be administered by an elected Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner). Regarding rate-setting, Proposition 103 provides that automobile insurance rates are to be determined by application of the following three Mandatory Factors in decreasing order of importance:
   1. Driver safety record
   2. Miles driven annually
   3. Years of driving experience
2. Further states under Proposition 103 that the Insurance Commissioner may adopt other Optional Factors in setting rates and premiums for automobile insurance.
3. Stipulates that the provisions of Proposition 103 may only be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a two-thirds vote.

Existing regulations:

1. State that pursuant to Proposition 103, the following Optional Rating Factors may be considered by auto insurers in the calculation of rates:
   1. Vehicle type
   2. Vehicle performance capabilities
   3. Type of use of vehicle – recreation, commute, business, farm, etc.
   4. Percentage use of the vehicle by the rated driver
   5. Multi-vehicle households
   6. Academic standing of the rated driver
   7. Completion of driver training or defensive driving courses by the rated driver
   8. Vehicle characteristics, including engine size, safety and protective devices, damageability, repairability, and theft deterrent devices
   9. Marital status of the rated driver
   10. Persistency – customer loyalty
   11. Non-smoker
   12. Secondary Driver Characteristics
   13. Multiple policies with the same, or an affiliated, company
   14. Relative claims frequency
   15. Relative claims severity

This bill:

1. Defines “Advanced autonomous driving system” to mean a vehicle system that meets the definition of SAE Level 3 (Conditional Driving Automation), SAE Level 4 (High Driving Automation), or SAE Level 5 (Full Driving Automation), as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers International standard, and applies its provisions only to these levels.
2. Defines “Autonomous engagement rate” to mean the percentage of driving time or distance during which an advanced autonomous driving system is actively controlling the vehicle.
3. States that an admitted insurer writing private passenger automobile insurance shall not increase the premium, rate, or any other charge for a policy of automobile insurance based solely or partially on any of the following:
   1. An insured’s decision not to engage or activate an advanced autonomous driving system in a vehicle equipped with that technology.
   2. An insured’s low autonomous engagement rate.
   3. An insured’s preference for manual vehicle operation when advanced autonomous driving capability is available.
4. Specifies that an insurer shall not do any of the following:
   1. Require the use or engagement of advanced autonomous driving systems as a condition of obtaining or renewing coverage.
   2. Nonrenew, cancel, or refuse to issue a policy, or reduce coverage limits, increase deductibles, or modify policy terms, based on nonuse or minimal use of advanced autonomous driving systems, except as otherwise permitted.
   3. Apply surcharges, fees, or administrative costs to nonusers or minimal users that are not applied to users of these systems.
   4. Characterize manual driving as a risk factor warranting premium increases when advanced autonomous driving capability is available but unused.
5. States that violations of these provisions are an unfair insurance practice.
6. Allows the Insurance Commissioner to impose administrative penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation after notice and a hearing.
7. Specifies that a policyholder may bring a private right of action for violations, and be entitled to actual damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
8. Makes related findings and declarations.

Background

According to the author:

“California has long led the nation in embracing technological innovation, and autonomous vehicles are no exception. The question before the Legislature is not whether self-driving technology will transform how Californians live, but whether California's laws will be positioned to ensure that transformation occurs on terms that protect consumers rather than expose them to financial coercion.

SB 1315, the Drive My Car Act, starts the conversation on how to address a significant gap in current state law. Nothing in existing statute prevents an insurance company from penalizing a driver for choosing to operate their own vehicle rather than paying for an autonomous driving subscription. As the market evolves rapidly, California cannot afford to wait for that gap to be exploited before acting.

The financial stakes for California drivers are already taking shape. Tesla has discontinued its standard driver assistance feature, replacing it with a paid subscription that its CEO has publicly signaled will increase substantially in cost. In other states, at least one insurer has begun offering significant premium reductions to drivers who engage their vehicle's autonomous system. California's mandatory auto insurance framework is the mechanism that makes this form of consumer pressure possible.

SB 1315 does not impede autonomous vehicle adoption but rather establishes the consumer protections necessary for that adoption to proceed on a foundation of data.”

Questions

Section 1849.4(a) of the bill states “A violation of this chapter shall constitute an unfair insurance practice under subdivision (h) of Section 790.03.” However, this portion of the Insurance Code deals with unfair claims settlement practices, which do not seem to relate to the provisions of the bill. The author may wish to revise this reference.

Concerns

The California Department of Insurance (CDI) has raised concerns with the bill regarding the relationship of its provisions with Proposition 103. CDI’s stated specific concerns are:

Alteration of Proposition 103

The bill would establish a statutory prohibition preventing the Commissioner from adopting a rating factor based on a driver’s decision not to utilize autonomous driving systems, which is already de-facto prohibited because it is not one of the mandatory or optional rating factors. Insurers are permitted to use optional rating factors adopted via regulation by the Commissioner that are substantially related to risk of loss and not unfairly discriminatory. As a practical matter, because the bill would constitute an alteration to Proposition 103, it presents significant litigation risk.

Conflict with Proposition 103’s Assignment of Authority

Proposition 103 expressly vests ratemaking authority – including the interpretation, approval, and implementation of rating factors – in the elected Insurance Commissioner. Proposition 103 provides that auto insurance rates must be based primarily on the mandatory factors and the additional optional rating factors. By imposing a prohibition on the use of autonomous driving non-engagement as a rating or underwriting factor, the bill intrudes upon the Commissioner’s constitutionally assigned role.

A Driver’s Use of Autonomous Vehicle Technology Cannot Be Used as a Rating Factor

Currently insurers cannot use the decision to utilize autonomous vehicle technology as a rating criterion. If the Commissioner were to consider adopting a rating factor, or prohibiting a rating practice, within the Commissioner’s rulemaking authority, that would require CDI to study the issue and proceed via the normal rulemaking procedures and standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1833 (McKinnor, 2026). Would amend Proposition 103 to authorize, as specified, a consumer to utilize telematics to establish their driving record as a mandatory rating factor for the purposes of determining rates and premiums for auto insurance. Pending in Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

SB 572 (Gonzalez, 2025). Requires, contingent on repeal of an applicable federal order, a manufacturer of a vehicle with specified advanced driver assistance system technology to report accident data to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 33 (Aguiar-Curry. 2025). Prohibits an autonomous vehicle without a human safety operator from delivering commercial goods directly to a residence or to a business for its use or retail sale, as specified. On the Senate Floor Inactive File.

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry, 2023). Restricts an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation. Vetoed by the Governor.

Double Referral

Should this bill pass out of this committee, it will be heard in Senate Transportation Committee, which will analyze the issues in this bill under its purview.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

None received.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The insurance associations known as the “Trades” state:

“While we applaud the author’s forward-looking approach in an era in which technological changes often outpace government response, California voters have already established a robust regulatory system, under Proposition 103, that puts significant limits and barriers on how insurers can utilize technological advances in any new auto rating factor. Rather than allowing California’s existing regulatory framework to evaluate new technologies based on evidence, the bill preemptively restricts insurer pricing practices before any data has been collected, and before the technology has been tested, reviewed, or approved by CDI.

The bill appears to be a response to public statements suggesting that insurers may one day offer discounts tied to the use of advanced driver assistance or autonomous features. At present, however, there is no settled actuarial consensus demonstrating that such systems—particularly those marketed as “full self-driving”—produce consistent, verifiable reductions in loss frequency or severity. The appropriate response to that uncertainty is not a statutory ban, but regulatory scrutiny. This bill instead prohibits that possibility entirely, even if future data were to support it.

Importantly, existing law already prevents insurers from coercing consumer behavior through unfair or discriminatory pricing. This bill goes further by barring consideration of a potential safety features altogether, regardless of evidence. There is no indication that insurers are currently surcharging drivers for choosing manual operation, nor that CDI has approved any such rating factor. The bill therefore regulates against a hypothetical future scenario, rather than responding to a demonstrated market failure. In doing so, it creates statutory restrictions that may quickly become outdated as vehicle technology and safety data mature.”

SUPPORT:

None.

OPPOSITION:

American Property Casualty Insurance Association

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

-- END --