In the US, Federal regulators are once again scrutinizing Tesla Inc. - this time over a new iteration of its driver-assistance software known as “Mad Max,” which early users say allows the company’s vehicles to drive faster and maneuver more aggressively than before.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmed it has contacted Tesla to request information about the feature, which forms part of the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. The agency said its inquiry aims to determine whether the mode encourages behaviour that violates traffic laws, such as exceeding speed limits or performing abrupt lane changes.
“The driver behind the wheel remains responsible for operating the vehicle safely and in compliance with all laws,” the agency said in a statement.
The renewed attention comes as NHTSA continues a broader investigation into nearly three million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD after receiving dozens of complaints — including reports of cars running red lights or entering intersections against signals. Those incidents have led to at least 14 crashes and 23 injuries, according to federal data.
The company, which disbanded its communications department several years ago, has not publicly addressed the latest inquiry. It has previously said that FSD is designed to assist attentive drivers, not replace them. Tesla markets the system as capable of navigating “almost anywhere” under human supervision.
Tesla first experimented with a “Mad Max” driving profile in 2018 as part of its early Autopilot software. The concept — named after the film franchise famed for its lawless car chases — signaled a mode that would make faster lane changes and handle traffic more assertively. The company quietly reintroduced the feature this month in a software update labeled FSD Version 14.1.2, alongside a slower-driving “Sloth Mode.”
Social media clips have already circulated showing vehicles in “Mad Max” mode accelerating well above local speed limits and gliding through stop signs — echoing earlier controversies that forced Tesla to recall more than 50,000 vehicles in 2022 to remove a “rolling stop” feature.
For the insurance industry, Tesla’s latest update raises familiar but pressing questions. As driver-assistance systems become more sophisticated — and more autonomous in practice, if not in law — determining fault when an accident occurs is growing increasingly complex.
“You have some regions in the U.S. that are highly litigious… what you’re hearing [now] is the language of a nuclear verdict.” said John Farquhar, fleet risk management specialist for national practices at Gallagher
Under U.S. regulations, Tesla’s system is classified as “Level 2 automation,” meaning that a human must remain in control and ready to intervene. Yet the branding of features like “Full Self-Driving” or “Mad Max” can blur that distinction, creating confusion not just for drivers but for insurers, who must assess where responsibility lies when technology plays a direct role in a collision.
“The language Tesla uses matters,” said one senior underwriting executive at a national carrier, who spoke on condition of anonymity because their firm is reviewing exposure to driver-assistance claims. “If drivers misunderstand what these systems can do, the line between human error and product liability starts to disappear.”
Several insurers have already flagged higher claim frequencies associated with vehicles using advanced driver-assistance technologies, citing the cost of sensor repairs and disputes over how the systems behaved before impact. The introduction of a mode that explicitly promotes higher speeds is likely to heighten those concerns.
The NHTSA has been tightening oversight of semi-automated systems over the past year, but enforcement has largely come after-the-fact, following accidents or public reports. In Europe and parts of Asia, regulators have imposed stricter limits on automated lane changes and speed settings.
If U.S. investigators determine that “Mad Max” mode encourages unlawful driving, it could force Tesla into another software recall — and spark new discussions about how to regulate the naming and marketing of automation features.
For insurers, the case represents more than a single automaker’s experiment in driver assistance. It underscores how rapidly the technology is outpacing the frameworks used to measure and price risk.
“Insurance has always been about predicting behavior,” said a claims manager for a major reinsurance group. “But when the behavior depends on software updates pushed out overnight, it’s no longer a fixed variable. It’s moving under our feet.”
As regulators weigh Tesla’s latest update, the outcome could influence how U.S. insurers approach automation risk — not only for Tesla but for every manufacturer racing to redefine what it means to drive.
