Advanced Mobility

1. Prepare for product liability complexity: Autonomous and ADAS litigation now targets OEMs, system developers, sensor suppliers, and fleet operators simultaneously. Defense strategies must coordinate across multiple defendants and insurers.
2. Substantiate EV performance claims: Marketing representations about range, charging speed, and battery performance face increasing scrutiny from regulators and plaintiffs. Real-world conditions often diverge from test-cycle numbers.
3. Clarify liability before deployment: Commercial arrangements for AV and ADAS systems require explicit allocation of responsibility for automated driving decisions, including indemnities, insurance requirements, and data-sharing obligations for incident reconstruction.

Advanced mobility legal risks beyond product liability have undergone notable shifts from last year's survey. Concerns over connected vehicle data privacy (44%) declined 16 percentage points from 60% last year, but remain the second-highest response. This drop reflects migration of data privacy issues to the regulatory compliance section, where FTC and state attorney general enforcement now dominate. The 44% who still cite it here likely focus on civil litigation and contractual obligations rather than regulatory investigations.

EV range and performance disclosures (42%) have surged to become the third-highest concern. This category was embedded in last year’s broader “lawsuits related to EV performance claims,” which increased by 15 percentage points to 27%. The emergence as a standalone category reflects the maturation of the EV market, where mainstream consumers increasingly challenge advertised specifications that diverge from real-world experience.

Liability allocation and risk-sharing for AI and ADAS driving decisions (41%) represents a new explicit category. The 41% response confirms that fault determination in automated crashes has moved from theoretical debate to active commercial negotiation. Battery safety and recycling obligations (25%) have remained essentially stable, declining only 2 percentage points from 27% last year, suggesting that companies have built operational frameworks to manage these requirements.

State and local AV deployment rules (24%) have dropped dramatically by 29 percentage points from 53% last year, indicating either regulatory stabilization or resignation that patchwork local rules are permanent. Charging access and right-to-charge compliance (16%) has declined by 11 percentage points from 27% last year, possibly reflecting the successful implementation of the infrastructure law or the fact that this issue is overshadowed by more pressing litigation threats.

Autonomous and ADAS product liability litigation leads advanced mobility concerns at 48%, declining only 7 percentage points from 55% last year despite industry preparation and risk mitigation efforts. This persistent elevation confirms a fundamental shift: as vehicles become more automated, legal responsibility migrates from driver negligence to product defects, and juries assign substantial liability to manufacturers and technology providers.

The litigation activity illustrates the new landscape. Plaintiffs name the OEM, system developer, sensor suppliers, and fleet operators in complex multi-party litigation testing for manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings. This approach drives up defense costs and settlement pressure even before trial.

Industry experts warn that this represents a structural shift in the insurance space, as traditional auto insurance (covering driver fault) will cede ground to product-liability coverage as automation increases. Legal questions now focus on manufacturer responsibility: Did the automated system make correct decisions given available sensor data? Did it adequately communicate limitations? Did software updates introduce vulnerabilities?

Complexity multiplies when liability is allocated among commercial parties. When an AV system integrates hardware from an OEM, perception software from a technology provider, HD maps from a vendor, and sensor fusion algorithms from a Tier 1 supplier, determining performance responsibility requires extensive technical analysis. Post-crash disputes between commercial defendants can be as damaging as plaintiff claims.

Nuclear verdict trends in trucking cases, including nine-figure awards, continue apace and preview potential exposure. The industry’s persistent near-50% concern reflects understanding that early cases establish precedents governing liability for decades, and those precedents trend toward manufacturer responsibility rather than driver fault.