Rivian faces class-action lawsuit over autonomous driving claims

A class-action complaint filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California targets the electric vehicle maker’s first-generation models. Rivian has been sued over allegations that the EV maker made false claims about the autonomous driving capabilities of its R1T truck and R1S SUV models. The lawsuit alleges that Rivian represented that these vehicles would be capable of hands-free, eyes-off driving, also known as Level 3 autonomy—an SAE designation for vehicle capability to handle steering, acceleration, and braking without driver intervention in certain conditions. According to the complaint, Rivian knew its first-generation vehicles would never be capable of Level 3 autonomy.

The lawsuit alleges Rivian falsely promised, over a five-year period and through a coordinated nationwide marketing campaign, that it would make its hands-free driver-assistance system — known as Driver+ — standard in every vehicle it builds. Represented by law firms Coleman Law and Tycko & Zavareei, the plaintiffs allege that the company continued to promote these capabilities to induce consumers to purchase them, despite knowing the hardware was insufficient. The complaint states, “No software update — no matter how sophisticated — will enable its Gen 1 Vehicles to perform as advertised”. This is not the first legal hurdle for the automaker; Rivian previously agreed to a $250 million settlement to resolve a class-action shareholder lawsuit.

The legal action contrasts these first-generation limitations with Rivian’s second-generation vehicles, which were overhauled in 2024. The second-generation vehicles feature the Rivian Autonomy Platform, which includes 11 cameras and a computer that is 10x more powerful than the previous system. These hardware specifications support features like Universal Hands-Free driving, which Rivian rolled out via a software update to allow hands-free driving on more than 3.5 million miles of roads in the United States and Canada.

This legal challenge mirrors regulatory scrutiny faced by other automakers in the United States. Specifically, the California Department of Motor Vehicles filed accusations alleging Tesla violated state law by deceptively marketing Autopilot, its basic advanced driver-assistance system, as well as its more capable Full Self-Driving software. Although a judge ruled in favor of the regulator, the agency ultimately chose to forgo a 30-day penalty that would have suspended Tesla’s sales and manufacturing licenses in California, as the automaker stopped using the term “Autopilot” in its marketing within the state.

Why it matters

The lawsuit highlights the ongoing tension between aggressive marketing of driver-assistance features and the technical reality of current vehicle hardware, a challenge that has previously ensnared other major EV manufacturers.