Blog

In mid-February 2026, the Chinese judiciary made one of the most significant decisions in the history of legislation concerning autonomous and automated vehicles. The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China published a ruling establishing a binding legal interpretation for cases involving road accidents and incidents involving vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS). Issued on February 14, 2026, this decision serves as a direct response to the growing number of technological abuses by drivers and aims to unequivocally resolve dilemmas regarding the division of liability between human and machine.

The basis for this landmark resolution was the case of a driver named Wang, which took place in Zhejiang Province. According to case files, the defendant drove the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, choosing to activate an active driving assistance system classified as Level 2+. To bypass factory safeguards enforcing hands-on-wheel requirements, Wang installed an illegal weight device (known as a “defeat device” or “cheat device”), which effectively deceived the Driver Monitoring System (DMS). Subsequently, the defendant moved to the passenger seat and fell asleep, leaving the vehicle entirely unsupervised. The car continued driving in automated mode for a significant duration until the system encountered a traffic situation exceeding its operational capabilities and stopped the vehicle in the traffic lane, blocking passage for other road users. Although no one was injured in this incident, the lower court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, deemed this behavior as fulfilling the elements of the crime of “dangerous driving.” Wang was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one month and fifteen days, along with a fine.

In the written justification, the Supreme Court formulated a fundamental legal doctrine stating that in vehicles not classified as fully autonomous taxis (robotaxis), the role of the primary driving subject remains inextricably linked to the human. The Court emphasized that assistive technology, regardless of its marketing or technical sophistication, performs only an auxiliary function and does not possess legal personality capable of assuming the burden of criminal liability. This argumentation cuts off all speculation regarding so-called “blurred liability,” often cited by defense attorneys in compensation lawsuits attempting to shift blame onto software manufacturers. The Court pointed out that the intentional circumvention of safety systems and the neglect of the duty to supervise the vehicle constitute gross negligence for which the user bears sole fault.

The ruling of February 14, 2026, carries a global dimension and extends beyond the boundaries of the Chinese legal system, serving as a reference point for legislators in the USA and the European Union. Above all, it ends the era of leniency for drivers treating Level 2 and Level 3 systems as fully autonomous. Establishing such strict criminal liability, even in the absence of casualties, is intended to act preventively and discourage experiments with technology on public roads. For vehicle manufacturers, this decision necessitates the implementation of significantly more rigorous driver monitoring systems capable of detecting not only the lack of hands on the wheel but also the presence of defeat devices and the driver’s actual gaze focus.