Assisted Driving Features Restricted: The Pain of Policy-Technology Misalignment

Recently, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has introduced a series of enhanced regulatory policies targeting combined driving assistance systems. Some vehicle models already equipped with advanced driver-assistance hardware have experienced issues such as restricted functionality, delayed feature rollouts, or inability to activate features, triggering a surge in consumer complaints. Many have accused automakers of "false advertising" or "feature downgrades." However, looking beyond the surface, automakers are not unwilling to enable these features; rather, they are compelled to comply with strict regulatory requirements. The core of this conflict lies in the misalignment between the pace of policy implementation and the readiness of existing hardware and software capabilities.

Policy tightening sets hard red lines, functional restrictions not decided solely by car manufacturers

By analyzing the complaint data from CheZhi.com, it can be found that in recent years, functional limitations and declining experiences have become frequent issues in user complaints related to advanced driver assistance systems. Many users have reported that when purchasing a vehicle, the configuration list clearly indicated the inclusion of features such as Sentry Mode, remote parking, and valet parking. However, after taking delivery, these features were not activated as expected. Additionally, some users have mentioned that after a certain OTA update, the previously available valet parking function was directly disabled. Even after multiple subsequent updates, this issue remained unresolved. Other users have pointed out that before the OTA update, the sensitivity of the Sentry Mode was relatively high, but after the update, the sensitivity significantly decreased, directly impacting the actual usage experience. In the face of concentrated user skepticism, the car manufacturers have chosen to remain silent, neither providing a formal explanation nor offering a clear solution, leading to user confusion and even being perceived as false advertising and covert reduction in vehicle specifications.

In fact, this phenomenon is not solely determined by automakers, but rather results from the continuous tightening of industry regulatory policies. Specifically, certain vehicles equipped with Sentry Mode have been restricted because their unauthorized image capture may violate the requirements of the State Council's "Provisions on Automotive Data Security Management (Trial)," which mandate that sensitive information such as faces and license plates must be anonymized.

In the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrade for Intelligent and Connected Vehicles" issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, it is clearly required that car manufacturers define the boundaries of system functions, improve safety response mechanisms, standardize the definition and terminology of functions, and prohibit the application for functions such as valet parking and one-button summon. These functions are difficult to ensure that the driver remains in ultimate control during actual operation, posing significant safety risks. Therefore, some models have had to urgently remove related configurations.

Furthermore, the State Administration for Market Regulation’s "Notice on Strengthening Product Recalls, Production Consistency Supervision, and Standardizing Publicity for Intelligent Connected New Energy Vehicles (Draft for Comments)" requires automakers to conduct thorough testing and validation of combined driving assistance functions, prohibits the deployment of inadequately validated software prototypes, and mandates that manufacturers assume primary responsibility for product quality and safety.

Currently, the assisted driving industry is undergoing a profound deflation of its bubble, shifting from early-stage chaotic innovation and gimmick-driven competition toward regulated development grounded in safety. This transformation manifests as a temporary strategic pullback in features—a step back that, in fact, lays a more robust foundation for the industry's sustainable growth.

Consumer misunderstandings stem from information gaps, and automakers have been unfairly blamed for "policy lag."

The core demand of current consumers is that a certain function is advertised when purchasing a car, but it cannot be used after taking delivery, leading them to believe that the automaker has breached the contract and acted dishonestly. However, the essence of the conflict is not the automaker's intentional dishonesty, but rather the misalignment between the pace of policy compliance for advanced driver assistance systems and the speed of technological iteration, combined with consumer expectation deviations, ultimately leading to a chain reaction.

First, there is an asynchronization between technological advancement and policy regulation. As a durable consumer good, a car has a usage cycle of 5-10 years; whereas, the iteration cycle for assisted driving algorithms and software functions is measured in months or quarters. To ensure continuous evolution throughout the vehicle's entire lifecycle, reduce the cost for users' later upgrades, and seize the technological and market initiative, car manufacturers need to pre-plan the hardware at the mass production stage and simultaneously reserve the capability for software upgrades. In contrast, the domestic regulatory system for assisted driving is still in the process of being perfected. Given that it involves critical issues such as traffic safety, liability determination, and inter-departmental coordination, relevant laws and regulations must be advanced prudently with safety as the top priority. The entry procedures, testing standards, and pilot scopes are also being gradually clarified, thus forming an objective situation of "technology waiting for policy."

Second, there is a clear time lag between feature promotion and regulatory compliance requirements. During the early development stage of advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), the industry’s promotional environment was relatively permissive, and many automakers conveyed functional expectations to users using phrases such as “upgradable in the future.” As regulatory policies have continuously tightened, authorities have introduced significantly stricter compliance requirements governing ADAS feature promotion, permission granting, and over-the-air (OTA) update deployments. Automakers are not unwilling to continue enabling such features; rather, they are constrained by clearly defined regulatory red lines and can no longer adopt the previously more permissive approach to feature rollout. On one hand, users have already grown accustomed to the convenience provided by high-level ADAS functions and are highly sensitive to any functional changes; on the other hand, enterprises must strictly adhere to compliance requirements. This contradiction directly leads to the passive reduction of certain features, giving users the distinct impression of “feature degradation.”

Rationally view the development of driver assistance technology, technological iteration should go hand in hand with regulations.

Advanced driving assistance is an important direction for the intelligent and connected development of the automotive industry, and it has a positive significance in improving travel efficiency and ensuring road safety. To promote its healthy and orderly development, it is essential to advance technological innovation and institutional regulation in tandem.

It should be clarified that the limitations on most vehicle assistance driving functions are temporary compliance adjustments, not permanent removals. Currently, most of these functions will be gradually restored in batches once the relevant approval processes are completed and they meet the latest regulatory requirements. Considering that intelligent driving technology is rapidly evolving, and related regulations are continuously improving, similar temporary adjustments may still occur in the future. Consumers are advised to view this process rationally. The purpose of policy adjustments and cooperation between authorities and automakers is to strictly control driving risks and safeguard safety, with the ultimate goal of protecting the lives and property of drivers, passengers, and road users. After all, safety is the greatest convenience.

For automotive manufacturers, during this process, they should strictly fulfill the notification obligations set by the MIIT regarding adjustments to auxiliary driving functions, and establish a transparent communication mechanism, rather than making restrictions covertly. According to the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrade" issued by the MIIT in 2025, when conducting OTA updates, companies must clearly and fully explain changes involving auxiliary driving functions, including adjustments to functional boundaries and safety response measures, and inform users through multiple channels such as vehicle apps, in-vehicle systems, and user manuals. From the perspective of industrial development, a standardized notification mechanism can effectively reduce safety risks and is also an important demonstration of automotive companies fulfilling their primary responsibilities and safeguarding users' right to information.

Summary: Translate the above content into English, output the translation result directly, without any explanation.