Legal in more places than robotaxis actually run. Permission and service are different questions, and the gap between them is wide. DEPLOY's record holds autonomous-vehicle frameworks across national laws, US states and Gulf permit regimes, in many places where no robotaxi carries passengers today. A framework existing is what makes a launch possible; it is not evidence that one has happened.
✓ Last verified Apr 1, 2026122 sources
Find out instantly when it changes.
More places than you can actually hail one. That gap is the useful part of the answer, and it is why this page exists separately from the coverage map.
Legality and service are two different things. A jurisdiction passes an autonomous-vehicle law or opens a permit regime, and that makes a launch possible. Whether an operator has actually put cars on the road there is a commercial decision that can lag by years, or never come. DEPLOY tracks the second question on its robotaxi coverage page; this page is the first.
What the record holds is a genuinely international set: national frameworks including the UK's Automated Vehicles Act, China's intelligent connected vehicle framework and South Korea's commercialization act, Gulf permit regimes in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Chinese city-level regimes in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and a set of US states alongside the federal NHTSA framework.
Two things this page is careful about. California carries far more rules than anywhere else on the record and has its own page, so it appears here as a single entry pointing there rather than being re-listed. And a regulator restricting or suspending an operator is not the same as a jurisdiction granting permission, so those actions are shown separately rather than counted as frameworks.
What the record holds
Counted from the registry rather than asserted.
Jurisdictions
22
Frameworks
21
Regulator actions
1
Permission is not service
Each column is attributed to what it actually describes. The third is the claim DEPLOY refuses to make.
What a framework does
Makes a launch possible
A jurisdiction passing an autonomous-vehicle law or opening a permit regime creates the permission an operator needs. Every framework below is a live registry record with its own dated status and sources, from national statutes to city-level regimes.
What it does not do
Put cars on the road
Whether an operator has actually launched is a commercial decision that can lag a framework by years or never come at all. DEPLOY tracks service coverage separately, and the set of places where you can hail a robotaxi is much smaller than the set where one would be permitted.
What DEPLOY will not claim
That anywhere absent is prohibited
A jurisdiction missing from this page means the registry holds no framework for it, not that robotaxis are illegal there. Reporting an absence of evidence as evidence of prohibition is the error this page is built to avoid.
California
California carries 11 autonomous-vehicle rules on the record, more than any other jurisdiction, covering the DMV permit tiers, CPUC passenger-service authority and the AB 1777 first-responder duties. They are not repeated here so that each rule keeps a single home: read the California rules.
Jurisdictions with an AV framework
National laws, US state rules and city or emirate permit regimes, newest first. Each is the permission layer a robotaxi service would launch under.
Autonomous-vehicle frameworks on the DEPLOY record
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia Technical Regulations for Autonomous Vehicles
Saudi Arabia's Technical Regulations for Autonomous Vehicles, issued by SASO (Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization) and implemented/overseen by the Transport General Authority (TGA) via a pilot and regulatory sandbox, in force from April 2026, working alongside Volume 801 of the Saudi Highway Code. The framework covers SAE Level 4 and 5 vehicles across passenger transport, goods transport, hub-to-hub freight, and autonomous parking; the Riyadh pilot (Uber and WeRide) ran through late 2025 with 1,000-plus users. The NEOM deployment hub (robotaxi/air-taxi announcements) is treated as deployment context, not a regulation.
Abu Dhabi: Abu Dhabi autonomous-vehicle permit regime
Abu Dhabi's autonomous-vehicle regulatory regime, administered by the Integrated Transport Centre (ITC) with oversight via the Cabinet RegLab, the Supervisory Committee for Advanced Driving Systems Testing (chaired by the Ministry of Interior), and the Smart and Autonomous Systems Council (SASC). In November 2025 Abu Dhabi began issuing fully driverless Level 4 commercial permits, with a real-time digital monitoring platform for tracking and incident logging as the regulatory mechanism. This is a permit-and-oversight regime rather than a standalone statute like Dubai's Law 9 of 2023; the Masdar City SAVI cluster is an industry zone, not a regulation.
Dubai: Dubai autonomous-vehicle law (Law No. 9 of 2023)
Dubai's Law No. (9) of 2023 Regulating the Operation of Autonomous Vehicles, issued by the Ruler of Dubai and administered by the Roads and Transport Authority (RTA), in force from mid-2023, with executive regulations via RTA Administrative Resolution No. (939) of 2025. It prohibits operating any autonomous vehicle in Dubai (including DIFC and free zones) without an RTA license, defining six AV categories and eight licensing conditions, and coordinates with the federal layer (Federal Decree-Law No. 14 of 2024 on road traffic). In September 2025 the RTA added a comprehensive framework for the operation of autonomous heavy vehicles for logistics transport (licensing, trial routes, technical requirements). The binding instrument is this law, distinct from the non-binding Dubai Self-Driving Transport Strategy 2030 target.
The Beijing Autonomous Vehicle Regulations, passed by the Standing Committee of the Beijing Municipal People's Congress in December 2024 and effective 1 April 2025, providing a city-wide Level 3-plus legal framework for autonomous-vehicle road testing, demonstration, and commercial operation (superseding the prior demonstration-zone-only basis; Beijing's high-level autonomous-driving demonstration zone launched 2020 and granted its first fully driverless permits in 2023). Operates within China's national ICV framework (see china-av-framework).
Switzerland's Ordinance on Automated Driving (Verordnung ueber das automatisierte Fahren, VAF, SR 2025/50), adopted 13 December 2024 and in force from 1 March 2025. It permits motorway autopilot, driverless vehicles on cantonally authorised routes (with a remote operator located in Switzerland), and automated parking - the road-AV framework Swiss-deployed autonomous-vehicle operators fall under.
The United Kingdom's Automated Vehicles Act 2024 (2024 c. 10), which received royal assent on 20 May 2024 (most provisions commencing via secondary legislation). It establishes the framework for self-driving cars and trucks: an 'authorised self-driving entity' (ASDE) accountable for the vehicle's behaviour, a 'no-user-in-charge' operating mode, and user-in-charge immunity. Built on the Law Commission's joint review of automated vehicles.
China: China national intelligent connected vehicle (ICV) framework
China's national framework for autonomous (intelligent connected) vehicles. Centered on the 17 Nov 2023 Notice on launching the pilot work for access and on-road operation of intelligent connected vehicles, issued jointly by MIIT, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the Ministry of Transport, which permits qualified Level 3 and Level 4 ICVs (passenger and freight) on roads in restricted areas of qualified cities under a manufacturer-plus-user consortium model; together with the 2021 Norms for the Administration of Road Testing and Demonstration Applications of ICVs and the GB national driving-automation standards. Autonomous-truck operation (e.g. Inceptio's L2+/L3 fleets, and Pony.ai's first-in-China cross-provincial robotruck platooning approval on the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei corridor, Jan 2025) falls under this national framework; there is no separate national robotruck statute.
Japan: Japan automated-driving framework (Road Traffic Act amendments)
Japan's automated-driving legal framework under amendments to the Road Traffic Act, administered by the National Police Agency (permissions via prefectural Public Safety Commissions). The 2019 amendment authorized Level 3 conditional automated driving (effective 1 April 2020); the 2022 amendment (Act No. 32) authorized Level 4 'specified automated operation' - driverless, remote-supervised operation with no in-vehicle driver (effective 1 April 2023), with the first L4 approval granted to a low-speed service in Eiheiji, Fukui Prefecture on 11 May 2023. The framework is vehicle-class-general (covers shuttles/buses; first deployments are low-speed shuttles).
Provisions of the Shanghai Pudong New Area on Promoting the Innovative Application of Driverless Intelligent Connected Vehicles, effective 1 February 2023, authorizing Level 4 driverless ICV testing, demonstration, and commercial application within Pudong. Operates within China's national ICV framework (see china-av-framework). Thin English-language primary coverage (cap-flagged).
Singapore's Road Traffic (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017 (amended December 2022), made under the Road Traffic Act 1961 and administered by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). The rules provide an opt-in trial and operational authorization requiring a qualified safety driver, a CETRAN safety assessment, mandatory third-party insurance, and a data recorder (black box); provisional national AV standards sit in Technical Reference TR 68.
Regulations of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone on the Administration of Intelligent Connected Vehicles, adopted 23 June 2022 and effective 1 August 2022 - China's first local law to permit fully driverless commercial autonomous-vehicle operation (no safety driver) on designated roads, with provisions on access, testing, demonstration, commercial operation, and liability. Operates within China's national ICV framework (see china-av-framework).
New Mexico has NO enacted comprehensive autonomous-vehicle statute; two legislative attempts failed (2021 HB270 and 2025 HB148, which would have required a human operator until 2036 but stalled in committee). AV operation is instead governed by a narrow testing statute (NMSA 66-7-12, autonomous motor vehicles; notification and regulation of testing) and the operative NMDOT administrative rule, NMAC 18.24.1.9 (Autonomous Motor Vehicle Testing and Operation, effective April 19, 2022), which permits human-supervised testing and, on certification (FMVSS compliance, minimal-risk condition, insurance, registration, law-enforcement interaction protocol), driverless operation. This agency-rule regime is the basis for Kodiak Robotics' autonomous Class 8 truck runs in the New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin. Applies to autonomous vehicles including trucks. EDITORIAL NOTE: the thin source base reflects genuinely thin underlying law (no comprehensive statute), not a sourcing gap.
Arizona: Arizona autonomous vehicle law (ARS Title 28 Ch. 9; EO 2018-04 / HB 2813)
Arizona's framework authorizing fully autonomous (SAE Level 4/5) vehicle operation on public roads. It began with Executive Order 2015-09 (testing, Aug 2015), expanded to driverless operation under Executive Order 2018-04 (Mar 1, 2018), and was codified in statute as Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28, Chapter 9, Article 5 (sections 28-9701 to 28-9708) via HB 2813 (effective Sept 29, 2021). It is one of the most permissive US regimes: the automated driving system is legally the driver, with no vehicle-weight cap, so it applies to both passenger AVs (robotaxis) and autonomous trucks (e.g. TuSimple ran driverless on I-10). Operators file a law-enforcement interaction plan and a written compliance statement with ADOT/DPS.
United States: NHTSA Automated Vehicle regulatory framework (United States)
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's framework governing automated-driving-system (ADS) vehicles. It centers on the Standing General Order (SGO 2021-01, first issued June 2021 and amended through 2025) requiring crash reporting for ADS and Level 2 ADAS vehicles; the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS, 49 CFR Part 571) and the Part 555 / Automated Vehicle Exemption Program pathways for vehicles lacking traditional driver controls; and the proposed ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP). In April 2025, DOT and NHTSA announced a revised AV Framework built on three principles: prioritize safety of AV operations, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, and enable commercial deployment.
South Korea's Act on the Promotion of and Support for Commercialization of Autonomous Vehicles (Act No. 16421), administered by MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), enacted 30 April 2019 and effective 1 May 2020. It designates self-driving sections of public roads and autonomous-driving testing/demonstration districts with regulatory exemptions, sets minimum-insurance rules, and underpins MOLIT temporary operation permits (e.g. Hyundai RoboRide in Gangnam, Seoul). Vehicle-class-general; supports passenger AVs, buses, and freight (the highway pilot has expanded across dozens of routes).
Florida's autonomous-vehicle framework, one of the most permissive in the US. It began with CS/HB 1207 (2012, ch. 2012-111) authorizing AV testing/operation by a licensed operator, was amended by a 2016 transportation omnibus (HB 7027), and was substantially expanded by CS/HB 311 (2019, ch. 2019-101): a fully autonomous vehicle may operate with NO human operator present and NO special state permit, with the automated driving system deemed the operator, plus on-demand-AV-network insurance rules and a legislative intent of statewide uniformity that preempts local AV bans. Codified at Fla. Stat. 316.85, 316.86, and 319.145, with definitions at 316.003(3). TRUCK SCOPE: the definitions are class-agnostic ('any vehicle equipped with an automated driving system'), with no weight cap or commercial-vehicle exclusion, and the 2016 amendment opened the door to truck platooning, so the law applies to both passenger AVs (robotaxis) AND autonomous trucks. Waymo launched public robotaxi service in Miami in January 2026 under this no-permit framework.
Arkansas's autonomous-vehicle statute: Act 468 of 2019 (originating bill HB1561), codified at Arkansas Code 27-51-2001 to 27-51-2006, signed March 14, 2019 with an emergency clause, and amended by Act 619 of 2021 (effective July 28, 2021). It authorizes operation of fully autonomous (SAE Level 4/5) vehicles on Arkansas roads under an AV pilot program with an ArDOT exemption; fully autonomous vehicles may operate without a human driver and may lack traditional controls, subject to insurance, traffic-law compliance, a minimal-risk-condition fail-safe, and a remote operator able to meet accident-reporting duties. This is the enabling law under which Gatik runs driverless Walmart middle-mile in Bentonville. Applies to autonomous vehicles including trucks.
Texas: Texas autonomous motor vehicle law (SB 2205)
Texas Senate Bill 2205 (85th Legislature, effective Sept 1, 2017) amended the Transportation Code to authorize the operation of automated motor vehicles, including driverless commercial trucks, on Texas roads without a human operator, provided the vehicle meets specified requirements. It is the state enabling law under which Aurora, Kodiak, and others run driverless commercial freight in Texas.
Australia: Australia automated-vehicle framework (NTC reform; SA Trials Act 2016)
Australia's automated-vehicle regulatory framework, led nationally by the National Transport Commission (NTC) through its Automated Vehicle Program (model legislation and an Automated Driving System Entity safety-assurance framework; policy paper February 2022), and at state level by South Australia's Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Act 2016, which made South Australia the first Australian jurisdiction to allow on-road driverless trials (in force 31 March 2016). The national commercial-deployment framework is a multi-year reform program; the SA Act is the binding first-mover instrument. Covers passenger and freight vehicles.
Washington DC's codified autonomous-vehicle statute: the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 (effective Apr 23, 2013), codified at D.C. Code 50-2351 et seq. (Chapter 23A), amended by the Autonomous Vehicles Testing Program Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Law 23-156) and a 2024 testing-permit-requirement amendment. Unlike New York's annually-renewed testing rider, DC has a permanent codified chapter with SAE J3016 definitions. However it is testing-only and currently dormant: DDOT has not opened the driverless-permit application pathway, and as of late 2025 testing requires a human physically present. No commercial robotaxi service operates in DC. CAP-AND-FLAG: thin source coverage reflects the statute's low activity, not a sourcing gap.
Nevada: Nevada autonomous vehicle law (AB 511; NRS Chapter 482A)
Nevada was the first US state to authorize autonomous vehicles: AB 511, signed June 16, 2011, codified as Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 482A (Autonomous Vehicles) with implementing rules at Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 482A. It authorizes testing and fully autonomous operation without a human driver under defined conditions (NRS 482A.200), for both passenger AVs and trucks (including driver-assistive truck platooning). The DMV is the registering authority; paid for-hire driverless passenger transport falls under the Nevada Transportation Authority. A 2025 bill (SB 395) proposed to require a human operator onboard commercial autonomous trucks and buses; track as a restriction-direction proposal.
Kept out of the table above deliberately. A regulator suspending an operator is acting under a framework, not granting one, and counting a suspension as evidence that robotaxis are legal somewhere would invert what the record says.
Restrictions and enforcement actions
San Francisco: California suspends Cruise's driverless robotaxi permits after pedestrian-dragging incident
Following the Oct 2, 2023 pedestrian-dragging incident, the California DMV suspended Cruise's permits to operate driverless vehicles, citing the company's failure to share footage of the dragging and determining the vehicles were not safe for public operation. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) separately suspended Cruise's driverless testing permit roughly three weeks after the incident. Cruise pulled all driverless vehicles off public roads nationwide in response. The suspensions effectively ended Cruise's driverless commercial robotaxi operations in California.
Every framework and action on this page is a regulation record on the DEPLOY registry, read live at page load, with its own dated status history and its own sources. The split between frameworks and enforcement actions comes from each record's own classification rather than from editorial judgement. Here are the sources behind them.
These are enacted frameworks shown as in force, and regulator actions shown separately as actions. DEPLOY reports the jurisdictions its record documents; a place absent from this page is one the registry does not hold, which is not a finding that robotaxis are prohibited there.
Common questions
Which countries allow robotaxis?+
On DEPLOY's record the national frameworks include the United Kingdom's Automated Vehicles Act 2024, China's intelligent connected vehicle framework, South Korea's commercialization act, Switzerland's automated driving ordinance and Saudi Arabia's technical regulations, alongside the United States federal framework. That is what the registry documents rather than a complete survey of every country.
Is a robotaxi legal in my state?+
The page lists the US states whose autonomous-vehicle rules are on DEPLOY's record. If your state is not listed it means the registry holds no framework for it, which is not the same as a finding that the state has no law. California is the exception with far more rules than anywhere else, and it has its own dedicated page.
Does legal mean I can ride one?+
No, and that is the most common mistake about this question. A legal framework makes a service possible; it does not mean an operator has launched. DEPLOY tracks where you can actually pay for a ride separately, and the set of places where a robotaxi runs is much smaller than the set where one would be permitted.
What are the rules in California?+
California has more autonomous-vehicle rules on the record than any other jurisdiction, covering the DMV permit tiers, the CPUC passenger-service authority and the AB 1777 first-responder duties. Rather than repeat them here, DEPLOY keeps them on their own page so each rule has a single home.
Can a regulator shut a robotaxi down?+
Yes, and the record holds an example: California suspended Cruise's driverless permits after a pedestrian-dragging incident in 2023. This page shows enforcement actions like that separately from frameworks, because a suspension is a regulator acting under a framework rather than a jurisdiction granting permission.
Where is it still illegal?+
DEPLOY does not make that claim. The registry documents jurisdictions that have a framework on the record; the absence of a place from this page means the registry holds no framework for it, not that robotaxis are prohibited there. Reporting an absence of evidence as evidence of prohibition is exactly what this page avoids.