The fight is winnable here

California is where robotaxis were born and where the rules get written for everyone else. It is also where organized drivers have come closest to winning. Here is the record, with sources, and what we are asking for next.

The pattern

Documented In 2023, AB 316, which would have required a trained human operator in any autonomous vehicle over 10,000 pounds, passed the Assembly 69 to 4 and the Senate 36 to 2. Governor Newsom vetoed it, calling it unnecessary. The legislature passed a near-identical bill, AB 2286, the following year. He vetoed that too. California has not overridden a governor's veto since 1980, so the bills died on his desk.

Then, in April 2026, his DMV did what the legislature had refused to allow: it adopted rules opening California's roads to heavy driverless trucks. The California Teamsters sued the state in August, arguing the agency used an abbreviated process and hid the economic cost. That suit is pending.

The robotaxi side has been harder. SB 915, which would have let cities and counties issue their own permits, cap the number of robotaxis, and set hours and pickup rules, died in committee in 2024 after industry lobbyists argued it amounted to a ban. Today, cities have no say over how many robotaxis operate on their streets. The state does.

Tracker

We update this table as things move. If we have a status wrong, tell us.

The next governor decides

Documented Driverless vehicles have become a litmus test in the governor's race, with several Democrats signaling they would slow or rein in autonomous trucking. Xavier Becerra has said in public that driverless trucks "must take a backseat to jobs and safety." We have not found a public position from Steve Hilton on robotaxis or autonomous trucks, and we have not found one from Becerra on robotaxis specifically, as opposed to trucks.

That gap is our first campaign. Before November 3, we are asking both candidates the same five questions, in writing, and we will publish their answers or their silence.

What we are asking for

1. A human operator where the vehicle is heavy or the passenger is vulnerable. Trucks over 10,000 pounds. Wheelchair-accessible and medical transport. Airport service. The legislature has already voted for the first of these twice.
2. Local control. Cities and counties can regulate taxis. They should be able to regulate robotaxis: caps, hours, curb rules, and the power to pause a fleet that is blocking emergency vehicles.
3. Utilization transparency. Any company permitted to run driverless passenger service publishes occupancy and utilization data quarterly. If the cars are full, the data will show it.
4. A driver's-side earnings record. Platforms report driver net earnings, by city and quarter, to the state. Robotaxi expansion decisions are made with that data on the table.
5. Transition money with teeth. A displacement fund paid for by the companies doing the displacing, not a study, not a commission, not a stakeholder process.
6. Driver-assist, not driver-replace. State incentives for fleets that equip human-driven vehicles with the same sensor suites and safety software, and publish the safety results.

Who is already in this fight

We are a publication, not a union. The organizing is being done by people who have been at it longer than we have. If you drive in California, start here:

• Rideshare Drivers United, which counts roughly 20,000 California drivers as members and has allied with Teamsters 856 on AV guardrails.
• Teamsters Joint Council 7 and Joint Council 42, who carried AB 316 and AB 2286 through the legislature and filed the DMV lawsuit.
• Your city council and county supervisors. Los Angeles, Oakland, and the counties of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Mateo all passed resolutions supporting local control in 2024. Ask yours whether they still do.

Sources for the figures on this page are linked in the tracker above. See our standards for how we handle claims we cannot yet verify.