At this year’s Shanghai Auto Show, a notable shift emerged: automakers that once aggressively promoted "high-level intelligent driving" have made a striking about-face. Now, they cautiously refer to their systems as mere "assisted driving," emphasizing the critical role of shared human-vehicle control. This pivot follows strict new regulations from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), which aim to rein in marketing language for intelligent driving and tighten oversight of over-the-air (OTA) software updates. Even the Ministry of Public Security’s traffic safety research division weighed in, warning that false advertising could lead to legal consequences—including criminal liability—for serious accidents caused by misleading claims.
Under Article 28 of China’s Advertising Law, fabricating or overstating assisted driving capabilities—such as labeling a Level 2 system as "autonomous driving"—can result in fines of 5 to 10 times the advertising budget, or even license revocation for severe violations. If such misinformation leads to accidents with casualties, it may violate the Criminal Law, potentially sentencing responsible individuals to up to two years in prison or criminal detention, plus fines.
Yet after speaking with industry insiders—including marketing strategists and R&D engineers—a common view emerged: these new rules won’t drastically reshape the intelligent driving landscape in the short term.
For Dayu, a marketing manager who designs campaigns for automakers, the changes are largely superficial. "Besides banning terms like ‘intelligent driving,’ ‘valet parking,’ or ‘hands-free driving,’ the regulations don’t disrupt our core strategies," he explains. New features that violate terminology rules get renamed; existing ones only need updated scripts and materials—costs that are negligible for most brands.
Strategically, automakers will still navigate regulatory gray areas. "They’ll highlight best-case scenarios within legal limits," Dayu notes, using phrases like "industry-leading performance under optimal conditions" to imply superiority without crossing explicit lines. Tech-inexperienced users, however, may still misinterpret these nuanced claims. In essence: marketing hype will adapt, not disappear.
Where regulations bite harder is in OTA oversight. Engineers like Xiao Yang, working for a top EV manufacturer, report immediate delays in planned updates. "Previously, OTA filings were rubber-stamped; now every update needs rigorous approval," he says. Gone are the days of rushing out "semi-finished" features—think lax driver monitoring that allowed users to ignore the road for minutes, or buggy "beta" versions tested on early adopters.
Take the "hotfix" culture: Car companies once quickly patched obvious flaws, like jerky braking or misaligned lane displays, without significant scrutiny. Now, with updates capped at monthly intervals and strict pre-approval testing, hasty releases carry too much risk. "This forces us to prioritize safety over speed," Xiao Yang admits. While development slows, it curbs reckless practices where users unknowingly served as testers for unrefined tech.
The catalyst was a fatal Xiaomi SU7 crash in March 2025. The driver, overreliant on assisted driving, failed to react to sudden roadwork, leading to a tragic outcome. Critics soon highlighted Xiaomi’s ads boasting "construction zone recognition," fueling accusations of exaggerated claims. This incident, coming just weeks after a milder February notice, pushed regulators to act decisively.
By April, MIIT convened a closed-door meeting with 60 automakers, mandating terminology changes (no more "high-level intelligent driving"; use "combined assisted driving" instead) and stricter safety protocols. The message was clear: ambiguous hype is out—clarity on system limits is now non-negotiable.
The U.S. offers a parallel story with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. After launching FSD V12 in 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated its poor performance in low visibility, involving 2.41 million vehicles. NHTSA accused Tesla of "misleading" marketing materials and threatened a $130 million fine unless discrepancies were addressed. Today, even the advanced FSD V14 still carries a "Supervised" tag—a regulatory reminder that human oversight remains critical—a lesson China is now enforcing domestically.
For consumers, the takeaway is simple: no matter how sophisticated the marketing, you remain the primary driver. Until a universal safety rating system (like China’s equivalent of Euro NCAP for ADAS) emerges, treat all "assisted" features as exactly that—tools to aid, not replace, human attention.
Industry insiders may downplay short-term impacts, but these regulations signal a crucial shift: from wild-west innovation to a safer, more transparent future. Slower OTA cycles and stricter labeling aren’t setbacks—they’re guardrails ensuring intelligent driving evolves without compromising safety. After all, the road to autonomy is long; better to build it on a foundation of trust, not hype.
0 $type={blogger}:
Post a Comment