AI and Autonomous Driving
Autonomous vehicles, AI-based driving functions and drones are fundamentally reshaping the legal landscape of mobility. GLADICA Lawyers has systematically developed expertise in this field across its full international dimension: from German licensing requirements under the StVG and the AFGBV through the EU AI Regulation to practical experience from the United States, Dubai, Singapore and China. This international perspective is decisive when it comes to providing legally sound answers to German and European questions for a globally oriented market.
Book an Appointment
Legal Expertise for the Mobility of Tomorrow
An International Perspective as a Decisive Advantage
GLADICA Lawyers has systematically developed expertise in autonomous driving law across its full international dimension. The firm analyses the liability structures applicable to the operation of driverless robotaxi services in the United States, the testing regimes in Dubai, Singapore and China, and the development of autonomous last-mile delivery solutions in public spaces. This international perspective is decisive when it comes to providing legally sound answers to German and European questions for a globally oriented market.
Liability Law in the Age of Autonomous Mobility
The liability structures applicable to autonomous vehicles differ fundamentally from those governing conventional vehicles. For highly automated vehicles within the meaning of Section 1a StVG, keeper liability under Section 7 StVG remains applicable; the vehicle operator is subject to take-over obligations under Section 1b StVG. For autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG, there is generally no vehicle operator in the liability law sense. Instead, keeper liability continues to apply alongside the duties of the Technical Supervisor under Section 1f StVG and possible claims against the manufacturer under the Product Liability Act. We analyse the relevant liability constellations in each individual case and represent clients in the enforcement and defence of corresponding claims.
Licensing Procedures and Regulatory Support
Operating autonomous vehicles in Germany requires a two-stage licensing system: an operating permit from the Federal Motor Transport Authority under Section 1e StVG and an operational area approved by the competent regional authority under Section 1d StVG. The Autonomous Vehicles Approval and Operation Regulation (AFGBV) sets out the detailed technical and procedural requirements. For testing projects on public roads, Section 1i StVG provides for a separate licensing procedure. We accompany manufacturers and operators through all stages of the process and support coordination with the competent authorities.
Drones, the EU AI Regulation and Data Protection
Drones as unmanned aircraft systems are subject to the directly applicable Regulations (EU) 2019/947 and (EU) 2019/945. Operations requiring a permit, in particular beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), require a comprehensive operational concept and a risk-based assessment under the SORA procedure. AI systems in the field of automated and autonomous driving may be classified as high-risk systems within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, triggering extensive requirements relating to risk management, documentation and human oversight. Data protection obligations under Section 1g StVG and the GDPR also apply. We advise on all regulatory requirements in this field.
AI, Autonomous Driving and Drones: Services and Legal Fields
Our Services at a Glance
Advice and representation in operating permit procedures under Section 1e StVG in conjunction with the AFGBV before the Federal Motor Transport Authority and the competent regional authorities
Liability law advice and representation in accidents involving highly automated and autonomous vehicles under Sections 7, 1a, 1b StVG
Asserting and defending product liability claims against manufacturers and suppliers of automated and autonomous systems under the Product Liability Act
Advice on data protection obligations under Section 1g StVG and the GDPR, in particular regarding the handling of vehicle and telematics data
Supporting testing projects on public roads under Section 1i StVG, including coordination with authorities and project participants
Advice on the duties of the keeper and the Technical Supervisor under Section 1f StVG and on operational implementation in live operations
Advice on the legal classification and regulatory implementation of the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, in particular on risk assessment, documentation and supervisory obligations for AI systems in the mobility sector
Advice and representation in licensing procedures for drone operations under Regulation (EU) 2019/947, including risk assessment under SORA and beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations
Advice and support for international providers entering the German and EU markets, in particular on licensing requirements, liability risks and the regulatory structuring of business models
Representation in administrative proceedings and before the administrative courts in licensing and supervisory decisions relating to autonomous vehicles, drones and AI systems
Advice on new and emerging German and European regulations in the fields of autonomous mobility, AI and unmanned systems and their implications for existing and planned business models
Liability Law for Autonomous Vehicles
For highly automated vehicles within the meaning of Section 1a StVG, keeper liability under Section 7 StVG remains applicable. The vehicle operator is required under Section 1b StVG to monitor traffic during automated operation and to resume control of the vehicle when requested by the system. If the operator culpably breaches these obligations, they may be liable under Section 18 StVG.
For autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG without a person operating the vehicle, there is generally no vehicle operator in the liability law sense, so that liability under Section 18 StVG typically does not arise. Instead, keeper liability continues to apply alongside the duties of the Technical Supervisor under Section 1f StVG and possible claims against the manufacturer under the Product Liability Act and under Section 823 BGB.
The vehicle data stored under Section 1g StVG may play an important role in establishing the facts of an accident. GLADICA analyses the relevant liability constellations in each individual case and monitors developments in case law and regulatory guidance in Germany, Europe and the United States on an ongoing basis.
Licensing, Operations and the EU AI Regulation
Germany has established one of the world's first comprehensive statutory frameworks for the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads through Sections 1d to 1l StVG. Operating autonomous vehicles requires an operating permit from the Federal Motor Transport Authority under Section 1e StVG and an operational area approved by the competent authority. Section 1f StVG governs the duties of the keeper and the Technical Supervisor in live operations; the AFGBV sets out the detailed requirements.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act) classifies AI systems in the field of automated and autonomous driving as high-risk systems depending on their specific function and area of application. In that case, extensive requirements apply:
Risk management and quality management
Technical documentation and conformity assessment
Requirements for human oversight and transparency
Registration obligations for corresponding systems
We advise manufacturers and operators on the legal classification of their systems and on implementing the regulatory requirements throughout the development and operational process.
For highly automated vehicles within the meaning of Section 1a StVG, keeper liability under Section 7 StVG remains applicable. In addition, driver liability under Section 18 StVG may arise, in particular where the take-over obligations under Section 1b StVG are culpably breached.
For autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG, there is generally no vehicle operator in the liability law sense, so that liability under Section 18 StVG typically does not arise. Instead, keeper liability continues to apply alongside the duties of the Technical Supervisor under Section 1f StVG and possible claims against the manufacturer under the Product Liability Act and under the general law of tort. We analyse the relevant liability constellations in each individual case and represent clients in the enforcement and defence of corresponding claims.
Where an AI-based driving function reacts incorrectly and causes damage, the delimitation of keeper liability, manufacturer responsibility and, where applicable, the liability of further parties involved is complex. The key question is whether a product defect within the meaning of Section 3 of the Product Liability Act exists, i.e. whether the system does not provide the safety that may legitimately be expected.
We represent clients in asserting and defending claims under the Product Liability Act and additionally under the general law of tort, in particular Section 823 BGB. This applies equally to software-based systems and AI-supported functions that are to be assessed as part of the product.
Motor vehicles with an autonomous driving function require an operating permit from the Federal Motor Transport Authority under Section 1e StVG and an operational area defined and approved by the competent regional authority within the meaning of Section 1d StVG. The Autonomous Vehicles Approval and Operation Regulation (AFGBV) sets out the detailed technical and procedural requirements.
We accompany manufacturers and operators through this two-stage licensing system and support the legal and regulatory coordination with the competent authorities. For testing projects on public roads, Section 1i StVG provides for a separate licensing procedure, which we also accompany in full.
Logistics companies as keepers of autonomous vehicles are subject to the obligations under Section 1f StVG, in particular the obligation to ensure that a suitable Technical Supervisor is in place for the relevant operational area and to organise the proper operation of the vehicles. Insurance obligations and the liability law framework must be taken into account in the contractual structuring and allocation of risk between operator, client and technology provider.
For deployment in automated logistics chains, we accompany the integration into existing logistics contracts and the legal structuring of cross-border operational models, from driverless delivery vehicles on factory premises to autonomous shuttle services in public spaces.
Drones as unmanned aircraft systems are of growing importance both in commercial logistics operations and in the field of official monitoring measures. We advise operators on the licensing requirements under Regulation (EU) 2019/947, in particular for operations requiring a permit in the specific category, on risk-based assessment under the SORA procedure and on the enhanced requirements for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations.
Drones used for traffic monitoring regularly capture personal data and are therefore subject to the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation, in particular the requirement for a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. The admissibility of drone footage as evidence in regulatory fine and criminal proceedings depends on the individual case. We examine the data protection lawfulness of such measures and the prospects of admissibility or exclusion of evidence in the specific proceedings.
AI systems in the field of automated and autonomous driving may be classified as high-risk systems within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and are in that case subject to extensive requirements. These relate in particular to risk management, quality management, technical documentation, conformity assessment, requirements for human oversight and transparency, and registration obligations.
Alongside these requirements, complementary liability rules for AI systems are being discussed at European level, intended to develop the existing product liability framework further. We advise manufacturers and operators on the legal classification of their systems and on implementing the regulatory requirements in the development and operational process, and monitor these developments on an ongoing basis.
Companies wishing to transfer their operational models developed in the United States or other markets to Europe must adapt these to the German and European licensing requirements, liability regimes and regulatory frameworks. German and European law differs structurally from the US system; the European framework is more harmonised and characterised by detailed regulatory requirements.
We advise international providers on the market entry process from the legal analysis through the structuring of the venture to its operational implementation, in particular on the requirements under the StVG and the AFGBV, the specific liability law issues, data protection requirements and the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Why Clients Trust GLADICA Lawyers
Legal questions relating to AI, autonomous driving and drones require advice that not only tracks legal developments but anticipates and classifies them at an early stage. GLADICA Lawyers monitors technological and regulatory developments in Germany, Europe and international markets on an ongoing basis, combining legal expertise with an international perspective that is decisive for globally oriented business models.
Highly Specialised Lawyers
Specialists in criminal law with strong courtroom and negotiation experience.
500+ Five-Star Reviews
Over 500 confirmed five-star reviews on Google and review platforms.
30+ Years of Experience
Over 30 years of combined experience in complex criminal and white-collar cases.
Multilingual Team
Legal representation available in German, English and additional languages.
Nationwide Representation
Cases handled in Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt am Main and other German cities.
Frequently Asked Questions About AI, Autonomous Driving and Drones
For autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG without a person operating the vehicle, keeper liability under Section 7 StVG continues to apply. Since there is generally no vehicle operator in the liability law sense, liability under Section 18 StVG typically does not arise. Where system failures occur, claims against the manufacturer under the Product Liability Act and under the general law of tort may be available. The Technical Supervisor under Section 1f StVG is subject to independent obligations and may also be liable where these are breached. Which form of liability applies in an individual case depends on the specific circumstances. The vehicle data stored under Section 1g StVG may play an important role in establishing the facts of the accident.
Operating autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG requires several regulatory decisions. First, the vehicle requires an operating permit under Section 1e StVG, granted by the Federal Motor Transport Authority on application by the manufacturer. In addition, a defined and approved operational area is required, determined by the competent regional authority. The requirements are set out in detail in the Autonomous Vehicles Approval and Operation Regulation (AFGBV). For testing projects on public roads, Section 1i StVG provides for a separate licensing procedure. We accompany clients through all stages of the process and support coordination with the competent authorities.
The Technical Supervisor is, within the meaning of Section 1d(3) StVG, a natural person who is able to intervene in the operation of an autonomous vehicle and to deactivate it if necessary. Under Section 1f(2) StVG, the Technical Supervisor is required to monitor the driving situations indicated by the system and to respond to system requests, in particular where intervention is required. The Technical Supervisor is not required to be physically present in the vehicle and may perform these functions remotely. Where these obligations are breached, the Technical Supervisor may be held liable under the general provisions of tort law, in particular Section 823 BGB. The operator as keeper is in principle already liable to third parties under Section 7 StVG; additional liability may arise in particular from the unsuitable selection or improper deployment of the Technical Supervisor, for example under the principles of organisational negligence or Section 831 BGB.
The key difference lies in the role of the vehicle operator. For highly automated vehicles within the meaning of Section 1a StVG, a vehicle operator remains present, required under Section 1b StVG to monitor traffic during automated operation and to resume control when requested by the system. If the operator culpably breaches these obligations, they may be liable under Section 18 StVG. For autonomous vehicles within the meaning of Section 1d StVG, there is no vehicle operator in the liability law sense. The liability framework shifts from a combination of keeper and driver liability to a system in which keeper liability continues to apply while the duties of the Technical Supervisor and possible claims against the manufacturer become more significant.
Yes, under certain conditions. Where a defective driving function causes damage, the manufacturer may be liable under the Product Liability Act. The key question is whether a product defect within the meaning of Section 3 of the Product Liability Act exists, i.e. whether the system does not provide the safety that may legitimately be expected. This applies equally to software-based systems and AI-supported functions. In addition to no-fault product liability, liability under Section 823 BGB may arise where fault is established. In Germany and Europe, the burden of proving product defects and causation is higher than, for example, in the United States. These differences are taken into account in the legal assessment and strategic advice we provide.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 imposes extensive requirements on AI systems in the field of automated and autonomous driving. Depending on the specific function and area of application, such systems may be classified as high-risk systems. In that case, requirements relating to risk management, quality management, technical documentation, conformity assessment, transparency, robustness and human oversight must be met, together with registration obligations. By international comparison, the European regulatory framework is more formalised, which typically requires significant adaptation on the part of international providers. We accompany manufacturers and operators in the legal classification of their systems and in implementing the requirements throughout the conformity process.
International providers wishing to operate autonomous vehicles in Germany are in principle subject to the same statutory requirements as domestic companies. Operating requires in particular an operating permit under Section 1e StVG and the definition of a suitable operational area. In practice, market entry typically requires the adaptation of existing systems and operational models to the German and European regulatory framework, in particular with regard to technical requirements, liability structures, data protection requirements and the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. We accompany international providers through this process from the legal analysis through the structuring of the market entry to its operational implementation.
Under Section 1g StVG, the keeper is required to store certain operationally and safety-relevant data and to transmit it to the competent authorities under certain conditions. The processing of this data is subject to strict statutory purpose limitations. In addition, all data processing is subject to the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation, in particular the principles of purpose limitation, data minimisation and transparency. By international comparison, the European regulatory framework is characterised by stricter data protection requirements. We advise manufacturers and operators in the development and implementation of data protection compliant operational and data processing concepts.
Commercial drone operations may be assigned to different operating categories under Regulation (EU) 2019/947 depending on the nature of the operation. More complex or riskier operations regularly fall within the specific category and require a permit. An operational concept and a risk-based assessment, in particular using the SORA procedure, are generally required. Enhanced requirements apply to beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations. We accompany drone operators in the legal classification of their project and through the full licensing and coordination procedure with the competent authorities.
The admissibility of drone footage as evidence in regulatory fine proceedings is a matter for individual assessment and depends in particular on the applicable data protection requirements, the lawfulness of the data collection and the specific evaluation of the evidence. No uniform ruling from the highest courts is currently available. Drone operations involving cameras in public spaces regularly capture personal data and therefore require a sound legal basis under Article 6 GDPR in conjunction with specific statutory powers. Even where footage has been unlawfully obtained, its exclusion does not follow automatically but is to be assessed by weighing the relevant considerations in the individual case. We examine for our clients the data protection lawfulness of such measures and the prospects of admissibility or exclusion of evidence in the specific proceedings.
