Tesla has acknowledged in a filing with California's Public Utilities Commission that its robotaxi service requires in-car human drivers and US-based remote operators. The company argues this setup is more reliable than Waymo's fully driverless system, citing a December 2025 San Francisco blackout. Tesla contrasts its approach with Waymo's use of remote workers in the Philippines, which has drawn criticism from lawmakers.
On February 13, 2026, Tesla submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission in Rulemaking 25-08-013, revealing details about its robotaxi operations. The filing describes Tesla's service as using Transportation Charter Party vehicles equipped with Full Self-Driving (Supervised), a Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system that requires a licensed human driver at all times to monitor and intervene if needed. In addition to in-car drivers, Tesla employs remote operators based in Austin and the Bay Area, who undergo DMV-mandated US driver's licenses, extensive background checks, drug and alcohol testing, and mandatory training. These operators serve as a redundancy layer to support the drivers.
Tesla contrasts this with Waymo's system, where vehicles operate without in-car drivers at SAE Level 4 autonomy. Waymo's remote assistance operators provide guidance in edge cases like construction zones but do not control the vehicle. The filing highlights a December 20, 2025, San Francisco power outage, during which Waymo's vehicles stopped in traffic after overwhelming its remote team with requests for confirmation at darkened intersections. Tesla states its vehicles 'were not impacted by the outage and completed all rides that day without interruption,' attributing this to the presence of human drivers who could navigate manually.
Tesla's Austin operation involves about 42 vehicles with below 20% availability and remains largely human-supervised, while Waymo delivers 450,000 fully driverless rides weekly across six cities. The company claims that engaging FSD (Supervised) makes a driver 'seven times less likely to be involved in an accident,' based on its Vehicle Safety Report, though this data has faced criticism for methodological issues and lack of comprehensive disengagement reporting required for higher autonomy levels.
Tesla pushes back against Waymo's proposals, arguing that Level 2 systems like its own should not require per-ride passenger consent for ADAS engagement, as the driver decides under SAE definitions. It also opposes restrictions on terms like 'self-driving' or 'robotaxi' for Level 2 services, asserting existing advertising laws suffice, despite a December 2025 California court ruling that Tesla's marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving violated false advertising laws.
Separately, Tesla emphasizes using only US-based remote operators for better familiarity with local rules, reliability, network connectivity, and cybersecurity. This comes amid scrutiny of Waymo, which employs about 70 remote assistance agents, half in the US and half in the Philippines. Waymo's Philippines-based agents hold local driver's licenses and receive US road law training but handle only simpler scenarios, with complex cases managed by US specialists. US Senator Ed Markey called the practice 'unacceptable' in a recent Senate hearing, citing safety and cybersecurity concerns, while Representative Earl Carter urged an investigation into foreign-based remote operators.
