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.
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.

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, in which mainstream consumers are increasingly challenging 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.

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.

Recent litigation activity illustrates the new landscape. Plaintiffs now routinely bring multi-party actions naming the OEM, system developer, sensor suppliers, and fleet operators, advancing claims for manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings. This breadth of this approach drives up defense costs and settlement pressure — even before trial.

Industry observers note a related shift in both litigation theory and risk allocation as vehicle automation increases. Legal disputes have increasingly centered on system‑level questions: Did the automated system make correct decisions given available sensor data? Did it adequately communicate limitations? Did software updates introduce vulnerabilities? In parallel, insurance markets are evaluating how existing coverage models apply to automation‑related risk, with growing attention to product‑liability exposure alongside traditional auto insurance frameworks. 

Complexity further increases 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 consequential as the plaintiff’s underlying claims.

Finally, nuclear verdict trends in ADAS or AV cases underscore the high stakes and potential exposure. The industry’s sustained near-50% level of concern reflects recognition that early AV and ADAS cases may influence how courts evaluate automation‑related claims over time, even as each case is evaluated on a fact‑specific basis.