Now, Waymo is facing challenges to keep certain aspects of the autonomous technology secret.[5]<\/a> The company recently filed suit against the California DMV in an effort to maintain secrecy on topics related to \u201chow it plans to handle driverless car emergencies, what it would do if a robot taxi started driving itself where it wasn\u2019t supposed to go, and what constraints there are on the car\u2019s ability to traverse San Francisco\u2019s tunnels, tight curves, and steep hills.\u201d[6]<\/a> It should be noted that these uncertainties are required by the DMV in order to issue a permit to companies using autonomous cars on public roads.[7]<\/a> The question this lawsuit presents is whether Waymo has trade secret protection regarding this information.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n The lawsuit began after an unidentified party submitted a public records request to obtain the company\u2019s deployment application.[9]<\/a> Under Barclays Official California Code of Regulations \u201can autonomous vehicle shall not be deployed on any public road in California until the manufacturer has submitted and the department has approved an application for a Permit to Deploy Autonomous Vehicles on Public Streets\u2026\u201d[10]<\/a> After receiving the public records request, the DMV then permitted the company to \u201ccensor sections\u201d that may be sensitive with regard to trade secrets.[11]<\/a> To which Waymo did, however, the requester objected to the censored information.[12]<\/a> At which point the DMV invited Waymo to file a lawsuit against the agency.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n In the complaint filed by Waymo, the company argued that \u201c[r]evealing this information to Waymo\u2019s competitors, either directly or through publication in the media, would provide Waymo\u2019s competitors with unique insight into Waymo\u2019s approach and strategy on a number of critical technology, engineering and business issues central to its development of autonomous vehicle technology\u2026\u201d[14]<\/a> Additionally, they argue that the company has taken steps to ensure the confidentiality of this information including limiting this information to certain individuals within the company, implementing software and physical barriers, requiring confidentiality agreements for certain individuals, and specifically marking information provided to the DMV as \u201cConfidential Business Information.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n Despite this controversy, the company \u201chas been more willing to share data then most AV companies, but largely on its own terms.\u201d[16]<\/a> For example, Waymo published \u201c6.1 million miles of driving data from 2019 and 2020 from its test fleet in Arizona, including 18 crashes and 29 near-miss collisions.\u201d[17]<\/a> Regardless of its previous disclosures, this lawsuit raises serious questions as to what information should be available to the public.[18]<\/a> Consumers may want to know more about these vehicles before they put their own safety in the hands of robots.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> General: What is Waymo?<\/em>, Waymo, https:\/\/waymo.com\/faq\/ (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Welcoming our First Riders in San Francisco<\/em>, Waymo (Aug. 24, 2021), https:\/\/blog.waymo.com\/2021\/08\/welcoming-our-first-riders-in-san.html.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See <\/em>Jennifer Elias, Waymo Opens Self-driving Car Testing to Some San Francisco Residents<\/em>, CNBC (Aug. 24, 2021, 12:43 PM), https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2021\/08\/24\/waymo-opens-self-driving-car-testing-to-some-san-francisco-residents.html.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Andrew J. Hawkinis, Waymo Sues California DMV to Keep Diverless Crash Data Under Wraps<\/em>, the Verge (Jan. 28, 2022, 12:36 PM), https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/1\/28\/22906513\/waymo-lawsuit-california-dmv-crash-data-foia.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Russ Mitchell, Waymo Sues State DMV to Keep Robotaxi Safety Details Secret<\/em>, L.A. Times (Jan. 28, 2022, 5:00 AM), https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/business\/story\/2022-01-28\/waymo-robot-taxi-sues-state-secret-black-ice.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, \u00a7 228.06 (2021).<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Mitchell, supra<\/em> note 5.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Complaint at 8, Waymo LLC v. Cal. Dep\u2019t of Motor Vehicles<\/em> (Cal. App. Dep\u2019t Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2022).<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Hawkins, supra<\/em> note 4.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/jolt.richmond.edu\/files\/2022\/01\/Screen-Shot-2022-01-28-at-8.22.49-PM-300x161.png\")
<\/p>\n