Tesla has once again suggested that it has Robotaxis operating in the San Francisco Bay Area, despite the company cannot legally operate autonomous vehicles in the state of California. As part of its Q4/FY2026 earnings letter, Tesla released information about progress it has been making on its Robotaxi network.
The company mentioned its progress in Austin, where it recently offered a small number of rides with a driverless vehicle, but critics argue that this is not a true representation of autonomous operation. Meanwhile, underneath the same 'Robotaxi' heading, Tesla described its Bay Area operations in California, which has sparked confusion and skepticism among investors and regulators alike.
This raises questions about Tesla's intentions and whether it is trying to deceive investors into thinking it has driverless taxis operating anywhere at all. Despite having only two geographical regions for its Robotaxi service - Austin and the Bay Area - Tesla uses a singular brand name, 'Robotaxi,' which implies autonomous operation.
The company's actions suggest that it may be getting away with what it thinks is a clever deception by using this branding to create the illusion of driverless taxis operating in multiple regions, including California, where it cannot legally do so. However, its actual operations are driven by humans, and the vehicles are equipped with Tesla's level 2 'Full Self-Driving' technology, which does not actually drive the car itself.
This has led to concerns about regulatory compliance and the accuracy of Tesla's claims. As a result, investors and regulators need to take a closer look at Tesla's Robotaxi operations and ensure that the company is being transparent about its capabilities and limitations.
Tesla's actions in California are a clear example of how companies can exploit loopholes in regulations to create a misleading narrative. By using the term 'Robotaxi' to describe its service, Tesla is attempting to create the illusion of autonomous operation, which may not be entirely accurate. This raises serious questions about the company's commitment to transparency and regulatory compliance.
