Tesla asked a Los Angeles County Superior Court to vacate a California Department of Motor Vehicles order that it said "wrongfully and baselessly" labels the automaker a false advertiser for marketing its vehicles' "autopilot" function, calling the order "deeply flawed."

Tesla Inc.'s petition for writ of mandamus and complaint centers on the DMV's Dec. 16, 2025, order finding that the company violated state law by marketing its vehicles' "autopilot" and "full self-driving capability." Those phrases are misleading because the technology doesn't actually enable autonomous driving, the DMV said at the time, ordering the company to change its marketing or see its permit to sell vehicles in the state suspended.

According to Tesla, the DMV's findings lack evidence, a problem the agency tried to duck by ignoring the relevant legal standard and "unlawfully shifting the burden of proof onto Tesla."

"And the order disregards a critical fact that should have been dispositive: It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or full self-driving capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous," Tesla says in the petition, dated Feb. 13.

"The order is factually wrong, legally flawed, unconstitutional and should be set aside," it adds.

In the December 2025 order, the DMV ordered the automaker to stop using the term "autopilot" within 60 days, or the agency would issue a 30-day suspension of Tesla's dealership license. Tesla had already stopped using the phrase "full self-driving capability" in its marketing after the DMV filed its complaints against the company in 2022.

Administrative Law Judge Juliet E. Cox at the time rejected Tesla's argument that it could still use "self-driving" to describe its cars because their hardware would allow them to reach this ultimate goal.

"Respondent's argument that such vehicles may yet become fully autonomous is optimistic, but not evidence-based," Judge Cox said. "The feature set name full self-driving capability is actually, unambiguously false and counterfactual."

Additionally, Judge Cox slammed Tesla's arguments that it has always and repeatedly issued disclaimers that its autopilot cannot supplant human attention.

"[Tesla] follows a long but unlawful tradition of intentionally using ambiguity to mislead consumers while maintaining some level of deniability about the intended meaning," the judge said in her order. "Moreover, [the DMV's] allegation regarding autopilot is not only that this name misleads in context; it is that the name itself, which respondent chose, is inherently misleading."

But Tesla says in its petition that the DMV didn't hear testimony from a single consumer before reaching its decision. And it "ignored that it was impossible to buy or use a Tesla equipped with either autopilot or full self-driving capability without being informed that they do not make the vehicle autonomous," the company adds.

Beyond that, Judge Cox "never cites, quotes or purports to apply the relevant legal test: whether the challenged statements, when read in context, could mislead 'a significant portion' of reasonable consumers," it says.

"DMV's procedure deprived Tesla of its constitutionally protected due process rights," Tesla argues. "After serving as investigator, charging party, and complainant, DMV then served as the final decisionmaker after adopting a recommendation arising out of proceedings rife with procedural and legal errors — notably including the administrative law judge failing to follow her own preannounced rules. The entire process was grossly unfair and violated Tesla's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process."

Tesla and the California DMV didn't immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday.

Tesla is represented by David C. Marcus, Matthew D. Benedetto and Ari Holtzblatt of WilmerHale, and Ariel A. Neuman, Oliver Rocos and Miri E. Gold of Bird Marella Rhow Lincenberg Drooks & Nessim LLP.

Counsel information for the DMV wasn't immediately available.

The case is Tesla Inc. v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, case number 26STCP00629, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.