º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

A comparison of legal developments for the use of autonomous vehicles in mainland China and Taiwan

China¡¯s Autonomous Vehicle Regulations

The new energy vehicle (NEV) sector in mainland China has developed rapidly to become a large-scale and competitive industry. With recent advances in electrification, intelligence and connectivity in NEVs, rapid advances are now being made in autonomous driving technology, prompting ongoing legal debate and legislative action in response to this fast-evolving sector. Due to the inherently conservative nature of the law, current higher-level legislation (such as the Road Traffic Safety Law and the Product Quality Law) is still primarily premised on traditional, non-autonomous driving. However, there is considerable legislative and regulatory activity happening at the lower levels of the legal system ¨C e.g., local regulations, technical standards and normative documents ¨C with numerous pilot projects and proactive exploration of ways of regulating autonomous driving.

Not surprisingly, technical requirements play a crucial role in the regulatory system in relation to autonomous driving. China¡¯s regulatory framework for autonomous driving exhibits a clear three-tier structure:

1. 1. Higher-level laws and traditional legislation, which provide the fundamental legal principles;
   2. Normative documents, issued by authorities such as the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the Ministry of Transport, which play a key guiding role in core areas such as market access, testing and data security; and
   3. Technical standards ¨C including national, industry and local standards ¨C which set out specific technical parameters and operational norms.

The national technical standard governing autonomous driving (the ¡°Classification of Driving Automation for Vehicles¡± (GB/T 40429-2021)) classifies autonomous driving technology into various levels. Levels L0 to L2 refer to ¡°assisted driving¡± systems with more limited degrees of automation. For Levels L3 (conditional autonomous driving) and above, the system can perform the entire dynamic driving task in specific scenarios when activated, though human involvement is still required for L3, which is the current focus of regulatory activity and industry breakthroughs. This article provides a review and analysis of the legal and regulatory framework as it pertains to intelligent driving vehicles (i.e., autonomous vehicles) falling within levels L3 and above.

Comprehensive Policies

National level. In 2020, the NDRC and 10 other ministries issued the Strategy for the Innovative Development of Intelligent Vehicles, which clearly established the goal of achieving mass production of conditionally autonomous (L3) vehicles by 2025, while aiming for more use of highly autonomous (L4) vehicles in market oriented applications. In January 2024, the MIIT and four other ministries jointly issued the Notice on Launching Pilot Projects for ¡°Vehicle-Road-Cloud Integration¡± Applications of Intelligent Connected Vehicles. This notice promotes unmanned and commercial applications of autonomous driving technology at levels L4 and below, and simultaneously launched pilot projects in 20 cities including Beijing and Shanghai. The continuously updated Guidelines for the Construction of the National Internet of Vehicles Industry Standard System establishes a comprehensive and systematic set of standards for intelligent connected vehicles, covering basic and key technology, product application, and testing and demonstration, providing a standardised basis for technological R&D and product access. In 2025, the MIIT released the Key Points of Automotive Standardisation Work, proposing the formulation of mandatory standards such as ¡°safety requirements for autonomous driving systems¡± and the establishment of related standards.

Local level. The Beijing Autonomous Vehicle Regulations issued in 2024 provide a clear legal basis and operational rules for high-level autonomous vehicle road testing, demonstration uses and commercial operations in Beijing. The Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Intelligent Connected Vehicle Administrative Regulations (Shenzhen Regulations) issued in 2022 comprehensively regulate registration for market access, on-road operation, vehicle-road collaboration, data management, traffic accident handling and legal liability for intelligent connected vehicles. The Regulations on Promoting the Innovative Application of Driverless Intelligent Connected Vehicles in Shanghai Pudong New Area and its implementation rules, issued in 2022, focus on the innovative application (testing, demonstration operation, commercial operation) of L4 driverless vehicles. In 2024, a limited number of ¡°fully driverless¡± licences were issued and dedicated high-speed test roads were opened.

Vehicle Access Qualifications

China adopts a strict regulatory model for the use of autonomous vehicles on public roads. All mass-produced vehicles must obtain Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturer and Product Admission from the MIIT before being driven on public roads.

Current status (L3 and above). At present, there are no unified, specific national access standards formally issued for mass-produced vehicles possessing autonomous driving functions at levels L3 and above. The core basis for access remains the Administrative Regulation on Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturer and Product Admission issued by the MIIT and related technical documents.

Pilot mechanism. Currently, access by L3 or L4 vehicles to public roads is largely enabled through local pilot rules. For example, local regulations and implementing rules in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen have established access conditions and approval processes for road testing, demonstration uses and even commercial operations within specific areas of their administrative regions. Vehicles entering these pilot areas must comply with the access standards set by the city.

Based on the experience of local pilot projects, industry players expect that national access standards for L3 and above are currently in the pipeline. After being optimised through local pilot projects, the core requirements contained in existing pilot standards (especially those concerning function safety (fail-operational safety mechanisms), human-machine interaction, data recording, etc.), are likely to become important components of future standards.

Accident and Product Liability

The key regulatory focus with traffic accident liability is on clarifying the responsible party and the rules for determining liability. The Road Traffic Safety Law and its supporting regulations are mainly premised on the human-driven model, leaving significant gaps in the law when it comes to the allocation of liability in the context of self-driving or autonomous driving systems.

Under the Shenzhen Regulations, when the L3 autonomous driving system is activated, the driver must respond immediately when the autonomous system requests human takeover. If a traffic accident occurs with a human-driven intelligent connected vehicle and the vehicle is at fault, the driver bears liability for compensation. For L4 and L5 driverless vehicles, the vehicle owner or operation manager (registered operation entity of the vehicle) bears primary liability.

In addition, where defects in autonomous vehicles (which are considered products under PRC product liability laws), cause accidents, liability is determined based on the strict liability principle established in the Product Quality Law and the Civil Code. The producer is liable for damages caused by the defective products, and the consumer or victim only needs to prove the product defect, the damage and the causal relationship between the two. As mentioned above, local regulations on road traffic safety (such as article 54 of the Shenzhen Regulations) have clarified that if damage is caused by vehicle defects, the driver/owner/manager who has fulfilled its compensation obligations has the right to seek compensation from the producer, providing a practical path for applying the Product Quality Law. Local legislation mainly clarifies the triggering mechanism of the liability chain (initial liability allocation to frontline entities (driver/owner/operator), followed by defect-based recourse against manufacturers), without changing the basic attribution principle established by the Product Quality Law.

Cybersecurity and Data Protection

Autonomous vehicles rely heavily on network connectivity and data processing, making cybersecurity and data protection particularly critical. There are no dedicated regulations for data security protection in relation to autonomous vehicles at the local level, with these issues thus governed by rules and regulations at the national level. The Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law form the basic legal framework at the higher level. The Provisions on the Management of Automotive Data Security (Trial) issued in 2021 and the Notice on Strengthening the Management of Mapping and Geographic Information Security for Intelligent Connected Vehicles issued in July 2024 lay the regulatory foundation for data security of intelligent connected vehicles.

Data collection and processing entities must comply with a series of requirements, such as storing key data (including geographic information) within China, and obtaining approval or passing security assessments for cross-border transfers of data. Enterprises must follow the ¡°minimum necessary¡± principle when collecting data, and implement encryption and access controls for sensitive information. Processing important data requires risk assessment and submission of reports. In the event of a data security incident, emergency response plans must be activated and reported immediately.

In addition, automobile companies must implement a cybersecurity graded protection system, build protection systems, monitor and block cyberattacks in real time, update software and patch vulnerabilities promptly, and strengthen in-vehicle software security testing and real-time monitoring of network status during operation.

In conclusion, China¡¯s legal and regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles is moving from fragmented pilot projects towards the establishment of a more systematic national regime. In the future, with unified standards, improved liability mechanisms and strengthened data regulation, autonomous vehicles at levels L3 and above are expected to enjoy clearer pathways for market access and a more comprehensive and predictable compliance regime at the national level. This will support the safe, healthy and sustainable development of the autonomous driving industry.

Fangda Partners
Shanghai Office
24/F, HKRI Centre Two, HKRI Taikoo Hui 288

Shi Men Yi Road Shanghai 200041, China
Tel: +86 21 2208 1166
Fax: +86 21 5298 5599
Email: email@fangdalaw.com

Back to top

Taiwan navigates path on autonomous vehicle law

Taiwan¡¯s Unmanned Vehicles Technology Innovative Experimentation Act (also known as the Unmanned Vehicle Sandbox Act) took effect on 1 June 2019, establishing a ¡°sandbox¡± for research purposes allowing autonomous vehicle testing on public roads within certain controlled and safe areas.

Under the remit of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the primary objective promotes development of industrial technology and innovative services, rather than regulating traffic supervision or control.

In addition, article 20 of the Regulations Governing Road Traffic Safety provides further regulatory guidance for testing the vehicles. However, these regulations do not extend to general public use of autonomous vehicles on public roads. While multiple Level 3 and 4 autonomous driving tests have been conducted, general public road use for Level 3 autonomous vehicles is not yet permitted.

As a result, technology verification continues within the sandbox framework. According to classifications of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Level 5 refers to fully autonomous vehicles that require no driver intervention ¨C which are not yet available for general public road use.

On ultimate conclusion of the sandbox experiment, if an autonomous vehicle is to be legally deployed on public roads, it must comply with all relevant existing traffic laws and regulations. Supervision of such vehicles would then be transferred to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, serving as the new competent authority for the matter.

Safety certification

Taiwan¡¯s vehicle safety laws and regulations are inclined to align with international standards, specifically those of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). However, relevant vehicle safety regulations are still under review and development.

Who is responsible?

In recent years, vehicles equipped with various types of artificial intelligence functionalities within vehicle systems (ADAS) have become increasingly common. Reports have emerged of drivers operating ADAS-equipped vehicles without maintaining proper control for extended periods, or engaging in other forms of dangerous driving.

However, under current law, AI is not recognised as a legal person and it is generally accepted that AI cannot directly bear civil liability. Furthermore, as there is no specific legislation governing legal liability of AI (the Artificial Intelligence Fundamental Act remains in draft form), issues of liability related to artificial intelligence are still addressed under the Civil Code, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and general legal principles.

Civil tort liability arising from using ADAS vehicles is primarily determined by the tort liability of the driver under the Civil Code, and/or liability of the automobile manufacturer for product defects under the CPA. Specifically, an injured party may argue that an ADAS vehicle qualifies as a ¡°motor vehicle¡± within the meaning of article 191-2 of the Civil Code ¨C which stipulates the liability of motor vehicle drivers ¨C and that the user of the vehicle is the ¡°driver¡± as defined under such provision.

If the injured party seeks damages under article 184 of the Civil Code, which sets out the elements and legal effects of tort liability, such party must prove the user was negligent in operating the ADAS vehicle.

Recently, a Taiwan court held that a defendant (driver) who relied on ADAS and failed to pay adequate attention to road conditions, resulting in a collision with a facility on the highway, was fully liable for damages under articles 184 and 191-2 of the Civil Code.

Additionally, with respect to the liability of automobile manufacturers, a party engaged in the design, production and manufacture of an ADAS-equipped vehicle (the provider) might be held liable under article 7 of the CPA if the court finds the provider failed to demonstrate its product met contemporary technical and professional standards of reasonably expected safety before the product was released to the public; or failed to post safety warnings and critical instructions for handling potential danger in a conspicuous place on a product that may cause harm to consumers¡¯ lives, bodies, health or property.

Criminal issues

Regarding criminal liability, recent court precedents held that article 7 of the CPA might serve as the legal basis for holding the provider responsible for preventing harmful outcomes. However, this does not mean the provider is absolutely responsible for eliminating every possible harmful outcome.

Instead, the courts emphasise the importance of the provider¡¯s duty of care. Specifically, when deciding whether to release ADAS-equipped vehicles on the market, the provider must exercise appropriate caution and judgement.

The key question is whether the provider breaches such duty of care during the decision-making process. Ultimately, the determination of criminal liability hinges on whether the provider fulfilled its duty of care in preventing harm when making such decisions, which is very different from the no-fault principle adopted by the CPA with respect to the civil liability of the provider.

Take a Level 3 autonomous vehicle as an example. Once the ADAS system is activated, the driver is still required to remain alert and ready to respond to the system¡¯s request to take over control at any moment, whether actively or passively.

While such autonomous vehicles are designed to alleviate the driver¡¯s burden, the allocation of legal responsibility between the driver, AI and the provider remains complex and evolving. How liability is assigned after an activation of an autonomous vehicle will significantly shape future legislative and regulatory developments.

Current laws require that a perpetrator possess either an ¡°intentional¡± or ¡°negligent¡± mens rea (guilty state of mind), depending on the nature of the criminal offence. There is currently no criminal statute that has been specifically promulgated or amended to address the unique challenges posed by the development of artificial intelligence. As a result, under existing law, AI cannot possess the requisite mens rea and, therefore, cannot itself be held criminally liable.

As such, the primary parties with potential criminal liability could be the driver and the provider. If the provider is deemed the subject of criminal liability, responsibility may also extend to individuals directly involved in the design, manufacture and distribution of the vehicle.

Conversely, if the driver is considered the liable party when assessing whether the negligent operation of a vehicle equipped with an ADAS gives rise to criminal liability for injury to another person, the prosecutor must establish both driver negligence and the existence of ¡°causation¡± between the driver¡¯s conduct and resulting harm, similar to requirements relevant to determining tort liability.

Recent court decisions have clarified that ADAS is merely a supplemental tool. If a driver fails to comply with the rules for using ADAS ¨C such as neglecting to maintain a safe braking distance, falling asleep at the wheel, or otherwise abdicating control to the system without remaining alert and prepared to intervene ¨C the driver remains subject to criminal liability for any resulting injuries.

Administrative penalty issues

Administrative penalties for traffic violations can only be imposed on drivers in accordance with the Highway Act, the Road Traffic Management Penalty Act and other relevant laws. The legislative framework of these two statutes places full responsibility for vehicle control on the driver.

Although autonomous driving technology serves as an aid to the driver¡¯s judgement, the driver remains responsible for any accidents that occur. For instance, if a driver violates traffic regulations or engages in dangerous driving behaviour, such as zigzagging or operating the vehicle in a hazardous manner, penalties may be imposed under article 43 of the Road Traffic Management Penalty Act.

Conclusion

Currently, ADAS vehicles available on the market are not fully autonomous. However, as AI technology continues to advance and vehicles become capable of independent operation, determining civil, criminal and administrative liability for incidents involving them will become increasingly complex.

Hence, it is essential for legislators to re-examine existing laws and regulations. Clear definitions are needed regarding legal liability for human activities involving artificial intelligence, as well as the allocation of responsibility and risk among humans and AI-controlled products.

LEE AND LI, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
8F, No 555, Sec. 4, Zhongxiao E Rd, Taipei 110, Taiwan, ROC
5F, Science Park Life Hub, No 1, Industry E 2nd Rd,
Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, ROC
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000; +886 3 579 9911
Email: attorneys@leeandli.com

Back to top