[phendrenad2]

Checked the article, you're right, the headline is deceptive. It seems like the laws Tesla is referencing are things like "You must not call something autonomous unless it meets <some arbitrary definition of autonomous>". Meanwhile, "autonomous" is not a binary value, and it's hard to draw a line where autonomy begins. Reminds me of the "we'll know it when we see it" definition of pornography put forth by congress at one point.

[pavon]

But regulators have done that going on a century now, and it has held up in court. The FDA has long lists of definitions of what you can and can't call chocolate, milk, cheese, beef, etc.

[deelowe]

Then they should do it in this instance as well. Until there's guidance, "autonomy" is just a word like any other and open to interpretation. In those instances, free speech should protect any company using the term and I say this as someone who 100% believes Tesla's advertising was deceptive.