COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt 12/1/2023

FILED
12/01/23

10:16 AM
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

R1212011

Order Instituting Rulemaking onRegulations Relating to Passenger
Carriers, Ridesharing, and New OnlineEnabled Transportation Services.

Rulemaking 12-12-011

JOINT ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S AND ASSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVELAW JUDGE’S RULING ORDERING CRUISE LLC TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
IT SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED BY THE COMMISSION FOR FAILINGTO PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION AND FOR MAKINGMISLEADING PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE
OCTOBER 2, 2023 CRUISE RELATED INCIDENT AND
ITS SUBSEQUENT INTERACTIONS WITH
THE COMMISSION
This Ruling orders Cruise LLC (Cruise or Respondent) to appear on
February 6, 2024, commencing at 1:30 P.M., for an Order to Show Cause
Evidentiary Hearing (OSC Hearing) and to show cause, if any, why Cruise
should not be fined, penalized, and/or receive other regulatory sanctions for
failing to provide complete information to the Commission regarding a Cruise
related incident that occurred on October 2, 2023, and for making misleading
public comments regarding its interactions with the Commission. The specificallegations that Cruise must address in its written submission and at theupcoming OSC Hearing are discussed below.
As part of its written submission and at the upcoming OSC Hearing,
Cruise is ordered to address the following authorities: Decision (D.) 20-11-046(Decision Authorizing Deployment of Drivered and Driverless Autonomous Vehicle
Passenger Service), Ordering Paragraph 7g, the telephonic meeting between

521170023-1-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

Cruise and representatives from the Commission’s Consumer Protection and
Enforcement Division on October 3, 2023, Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure, and Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 2107, 2108, 5411, 5415, and5378(a) and (b).
1.

Factual and Procedural Background1.1. Cruise’s Duty to Report
Autonomous Vehicle Collisions
On November 23, 2020, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 20-11-046,

entitled Decision Authorizing Deployment of Drivered and Driverless Autonomous
Vehicle Passenger Service. Pursuant to that decision Autonomous vehicle
companies having the necessary operating permits from the California
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Commission to participate in theautonomous vehicle (AV) deployment program were required to comply withthe requirements of D.20-11-046 as a condition for providing drivered anddriverless AV transportation service.
For the Commission to satisfy its duty to understand and ensure the safetyof the autonomous vehicle passenger service, D.20-11-046 contained twoordering paragraphs that established reporting requirements for Drivered andDriverless AV Passenger Service. As the incident giving rise to this OSC involves
Cruise’s driverless AV transportation service, it is necessary to set forth theapplicable reporting requirements in Ordering Paragraph 7(g):7. Permit-holders participating in the driverless AV deployment program
shall:
g. Transmit simultaneously to the Commission all reports
required by DMV regulations, including the process in theevent of a collision, law enforcement interaction plan,
collision reporting, disclosure to the passenger regarding
collection and use of personal information, and annualautonomous Vehicle disengagement reports[.]-2-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

The DMV requires permitted providers of AV transportation service toprovide complete disclosure of information of any incident that may call into
question the safety of AV transportation service. As stated in the DMV’s October24, 2023 Order of Suspension sent to Cruise, the failure to provide complete
disclosure constitutes a violation of 13 California Code of Regulations§227.42(b)(5), which states:
Any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents,
employees, contractors, or designees which the department
finds makes the conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on
public roads by the manufacturer an unreasonable risk to the
public.1
Accordingly, as the DMV has determined that Cruise failed to comply
with the DMV’s reporting requirements, that failure also amounts to a violationof Ordering Paragraph 7g and applicable Commission Rules and statutes, which
will be set forth later in this Ruling.
2.

Cruise’s Failure to Provide a Complete
Report of the October 2, 2023 Incident
to the Commission
On October 2, 2023, at approximately 9:30 p.m., an unknown driver strucka pedestrian in the crosswalk at 5th and Market streets in San Francisco. The
impact caused the pedestrian to fall into the path of a driverless Cruise AV,
which instituted a hard-braking maneuver and came to a stop.2 Yet in the processof engaging in the hard-breaking maneuver, the Cruise AV collided with and ran
over the pedestrian.3 After coming to a complete stop, the Cruise AV attempted
1 DMV Order of Suspension (October 24, 2023) and DMV News Release are attached to thisOSC. The Commission takes official notice of the Order of Suspension and the facts recitedtherein pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 DMV Order of Suspension.
3 Id.

-3-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

to perform a pullover maneuver while the pedestrian was still underneath theCruise AV.4 The Cruise AV travelled approximately 20 feet and reached a speedof 7 mph before coming to a complete stop.5 During this pullover, the pedestrian
remained under the Cruise AV.6
On October 3, 2023, Jose Alvarado of Cruise telephoned Ashlyn Kong, a
CPED analyst at the Commission, and informed her of the collision.7 During thistelephonic meeting, Mr. Alvarado’s description of the incident only included that
the Cruise AV immediately stopped upon impact with the pedestrian andcontacted Cruise’s remote assistance.8 Mr. Alvarado’s description of the October
2, 2023 incident omitted that the Cruise AV had engaged in the pullover
maneuver which resulted in the pedestrian being dragged an additional 20 feetat 7 mph.9
On October 5, 2023, CPED’s Transportation Enforcement Branch (TEB)
issued a data request seeking information related to the October 2, 2023 incident,
including video documentation.10
On October 11, 2023, the Commission’s Transportation Licensing andAnalysis Branch (TLAB) met with the DMV and learned that the DMV wastrying to obtain a longer video of the October 2, 2023 incident.11

4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Declaration of Ashlyn Kong (Kong Decl.) at 4,
8 Id., at 7.
9 Id.
10 Declaration of Bezawit Dilgassa (Dilgassa Decl.) at 2.
11 Kong Decl. at 9.

-4-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

On October 18, 2023, TLAB and Cruise representatives met. Cruise stated it
was in the process of providing the full video to the Commission’s TEB.12
On October 19, 2023, Cruise responded to TEB’s data request and provided
the full video of the October 2, 2023 incident.13
Thus, from October 3, 2023 to October 18, 2023, Cruise failed to provide theCommission with a full account of the October 2, 2023 incident for 15 days.
3.

Cruise’s Public Misrepresentations
Regarding the Extent of its Cooperation
with the Commission
On October 24, 2023, Cruise issued a blog post entitled “A detailed reviewof the recent SF hit-and-run incident.”14 In the post, Cruise asserted that
our team proactively shared information with the DMV,
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), including
the full video, and have stayed in close contact with regulators
to answer their questions.15
That statement is misleading in two respects: first Cruise claims to have“proactively shared information” when, in fact, it withheld information from theCommission for 15 days, thus misleading the Commission.16 Second, by

12 Id., at 10-12.
13 Dilgassa Decl., at 3.
14 . https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-the-recent-sf-hit-and-run-

incident/
15 Cruise’s claims of proactive sharing also appear in the following articles:

https://abc7news.com/cruise-permit-suspended-dmv-autonomous-vehiclepermits/13964874/
https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/24/dmv-immediately-suspends-cruises-robotaxi-permit-incalifornia/
16 Kong Decl., at 13.

-5-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

withholding information about the extent of the Cruise AV interaction with thepedestrian, Cruise misled the DMV and, in turn, the Commission into thinking
that the original video shown and commented on accurately memorialized thefull extent of the incident.
4.

Penalty Analysis
4.1. Rule 1.1.
Pursuant to Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:
Any person who signs a pleading or brief, enters an
appearance, offers testimony at a hearing, or transacts
business with the Commission, by such act represents that heor she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with thelaws of this State; to maintain the respect due to theCommission, members of the Commission and its
Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead theCommission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of factor law.
A person subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction does not need to act

with the intent to mislead the Commission to violate Rule 1.1.17 Instead, a Rule
1.1 violation can occur if one misleads the Commission through the omission offacts essential to the Commission’s understanding of the circumstances
regarding an event that’s within the purview of the Commission’s regulatory
authority. Thus, Cruise’s omission of the circumstances in which its Cruise AV
attempted a pullover maneuver and dragged the pedestrian 20 feet and reacheda speed of 7 mph misled the Commission regarding the extent and severity of theOctober 2, 2023 incident, as well as the ability of Cruise’s AV’s to operate safely

17 See discussion in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2013) 237 Call.App.4th

812, 840-842, and 854; and Decisions (D.) 16-01-014, fn. 65; D.13-12-053; D.93-05-078,
D.01-09-019; and D.90-12-038.

-6-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

after experiencing a collision. Such an omission is the type of conduct prohibitedby Rule 1.1.
5.

Fine/Penalty Analysis
The Commission’s authority to fine or penalize a public utility not incompliance with a Commission rule, order, ruling, regulatory requirement, etc.,
is set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 2107 (penalties range from $500 to $100,000)18 and
2108 (which provides that every violation is a separate offense, and that each
day’s continuance shall be a separate and distinct offense).19 And as in the case ofa Rule 1.1 violation, one need not act with a specific intent to violate Pub. Util.
Code § 2107.20
In addition, there are separate fine or penalty ranges for TCPs, which
would include a Cruise. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5411, TCPs can be fined
between $1,000 and $5,000,21 and each day’s continuance thereof is a separate

18 Section 2107 states:

Any public utility that violates or fails to comply with any provision of
the Constitution of this state or of this part, or that fails or neglects tocomply with any part or provision of any order, decision, decree, rule,
direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, in a case in which a
penalty has not otherwise been provided, is subject to a penalty of notless than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), for each offense.
19 Section 2108 states:

Every violation of the provisions of this part or of any part of any order,
decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of thecommission, by any corporation or person is a separate and distinct
offense, and in case of a continuing violation each day's continuancethereof shall be a separate and distinct offense.
20 Pacific Gas & Electric Co., supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at 843-844.
21 Section 5411 states:

Every charter-party carrier of passengers and every officer, director,
agent, or employee of any charter-party carrier of passengers who
Footnote continued on next page.

-7-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

and distinct offense pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5415. Finally, Pub. Util. Code§ 5378(b) also provides that a TCP can be fined up to $7,500 for a violation of theprovisions set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 5378(a).22
Thus, Cruise’s failure to comply with D.20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7g,
as well as its public misrepresentations regarding its alleged proactive
cooperation with the Commission, subjects it to potential penalties under any or
all of the foregoing referenced sections of the Public Utilities Code.
6.

Additional Regulatory Sanctions
Cruise’s failure to comply with D.20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7g, andits public misrepresentations regarding its proactive cooperation with theCommission, potentially exposes Cruise to additional regulatory sanctions. First,

violates or who fails to comply with, or who procures, aids, or abets any
violation by any charter-party carrier of passengers of any provision ofthis chapter, or who fails to obey, observe, or comply with any order,
decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand, or requirement of thecommission, or of any operating permit or certificate issued to any
charter-party carrier of passengers, or who procures, aids, or abets any
charter-party carrier of passengers in its failure to obey, observe, orcomply with any such order, decision, rule, regulation, direction,
demand, requirement, or operating permit or certificate, is guilty of amisdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000) and not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or byimprisonment in a county jail for not more than three months,
or by both that fine and imprisonment.
22 Section 5378 (b) states:(b) The commission may levy a civil penalty of up to seven thousand five
hundred dollars ($7,500) upon the holder of an operating permit or
certificate issued pursuant to this chapter, for any of the grounds
specified in subdivision (a), as an alternative to canceling, revoking,or suspending the permit or certificate. The commission may also levy
interest upon the civil penalty, which shall be calculated as of the dateon which the civil penalty is unpaid and delinquent. The commission
shall deposit at least monthly all civil penalties and interest collectedpursuant to this section into the General Fund.

-8-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

there is authority to suspend or revoke any operating permit pursuant to Pub.
Util. Code § 5378(a).23 Second, the Commission has additional, broadly worded
authority to impose regulatory penalties and requirements pursuant to Pub. Util.
Code § 701.24 Thus, Pub. Util. Code §§ 701 and 5378(a) provide a template for theCommission to consider imposing additional regulatory penalties andrequirements to ensure greater compliance on Cruise’s part.
7.

Order to Show Cause
Cruise’s failure to comply with D.20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7g,

misleading the Commission through omission regarding the extent andseriousness of the October 2, 2023 incident, and misrepresentations to the public
about its proactive cooperation with the Commission, establish sufficientgrounds for the instant OSC and subsequent OSC hearing. The OSC hearing is
the proper forum for Cruise to be heard and to submit evidence, information, or
documents on its behalf.
Pursuant to its regulatory authority, the Commission may find that
Cruise’s conduct rises to a violation of Rule 1.1.
Pursuant to its regulatory authority, the Commission may find that
Cruise’s conduct rises to a violation of Pub. Util. Code § 2107.

23 We note that on October 24, 2023, the DMV suspended Cruise’s AV Testing Permit fordriverless vehicles. As a result of that suspension, Cruise’s authority to offer driverlessautonomous vehicle passenger service as a Transportation Charter-Party Carrier (TCP)
permitholder has also been suspended. (See D.20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 13.) In the eventthat the DMV ends Cruise’s suspension at some future date, that act does not prevent theCommission, on its own, from suspending or revoking Cruise’s TCP permit.
24 Section 701 states:

The Commission may supervise and regulate every public utility in theState and may do all things, whether specifically designated in this partor in addition thereto, which are necessary and convenient in the exerciseof such power and jurisdiction.

-9-

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2107, the Commission may impose penalties
up to $100,000 per offense.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2108, the Commission may find that Cruise’s
conduct constitutes a continuing offense.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5411, the Commission may impose fines up
to $5,000 per offense.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code 5378(a), the Commission has the authority tosuspend or revoke the operating permit of a TCP, which would include Cruise.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5378(b), the Commission may impose
penalties up to $7,500 per day per offense in lieu of suspension or revocation foron-going violations of the Public Utilities Code.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 701, the Commission may impose additional
regulatory penalties. The issues that Cruise must address in its written statementin advance of the OSC hearing and at the OSC hearing are as follows:a) Whether Cruise’s failure to fully disclose the circumstancesof the October 2, 2023 incident violated Rule 1.1.
b) Whether Cruise’s failure to fully disclose the circumstancesof the October 2, 2023 incident violated Pub. Util. Code§ 2107.
c) Whether Cruise’s failure to fully disclose the circumstancesof the October 2, 2023 incident violated D.20-11-046,
Ordering Paragraph 7g.
d) Whether Cruise’s failure to fully disclose the circumstancesof the October 2, 2023 incident should subject Cruise to any
penalties, fines, or other regulatory sanctions pursuant to
Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 2107, 5378(a), 5378(b), and 5411.
e) Whether Cruise’s failure to fully disclose the circumstancesof the October 2, 2023 incident should be considered acontinuous offense or multiple continuous offenses
pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 2108 and 5415.
- 10 -

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smtf) Whether Cruise’s public representations regarding its
proactive cooperation with the Commission should subject
Cruise to any penalties, fines, or other regulatory sanctions
pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 2107, 5378(a), 5378(b),and 5411.
8.

Ex Parte Prohibition
Ex parte communications are prohibited as to the OSC portion of thisproceeding as it is adjudicatory.
IT IS RULED that:
1. Cruise LLC is ordered to appear at the Order to Show Cause Evidentiary
Hearing to be scheduled as described below, and therein to show cause why theCommission should or should not fine, penalize, and/or impose other regulatory
sanctions against Cruise for failing to fully disclose the circumstances of theOctober 2, 2023 incident, and for making public misrepresentations regarding its
claimed proactive cooperation with the Commission.
2. Cruise LLC shall appear and show cause why it should or should not be
fined, penalized, and/or incur other regulatory sanctions at the following
Evidentiary Hearing:
February 6, 2024, commencing at 1:30 P.M.
California Public Utilities Commission Auditorium
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California, 94102
3. Robert M. Mason III, one of the co-assigned Administrative Law Judges inthis proceeding, is assigned as the presiding officer over the hearing that will beheld in the Order to Show Cause Evidentiary Hearing.
4. A quorum of the Commission may attend the hearing.
5. At the hearing, Cruise LLC shall cause to appear representatives who will
be capable of addressing all the issues identified in this Ruling, as well as thefacts and arguments contained in its verified statements. Such representatives- 11 -

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt

shall speak under oath and may be subject to questioning by the Commissioners
and Administrative Law Judge Robert M. Mason III.
6. No later than the close of business on December 18, 2023, Cruise LLC shallfile and serve a verified statement responding to the issues identified in Section 5of this Ruling. The verified statement shall include all facts, arguments, and legal
authorities that support Cruise’s position. A word version of the verifiedstatement and all attachments shall be hand delivered to Administrative Law
Judge Robert M. Mason III, along with a three-ringed binder containing a copy of
all authorities cited in the verified statement.
7. Should Cruise LLC fail to appear, the allegations in this Ruling will bedeemed admitted.
8. Ex parte communications are prohibited for the Order to Show Cause
portion of this proceeding as it is adjudicatory.

9. This Ruling shall be served on the service list for this proceeding.
Additionally, a copy shall be served on:
PRASHANTHI RAMAN at prashanthi.raman@getcruise.com
AICHI DANIEL at aichi.daniel@getcruise.com
Cruise LLC
333 Brannan Street
San Francisco, Ca 94107
Dated December 1, 2023, at San Francisco, California.

- 12 -

R.12-12-011 COM/GSH/ALJ/RIM/smt/s/ GENEVIEVE SHIROMA
Genevieve Shiroma
Assigned Commissioner/s/ ROBERT M MASON III
Robert M. Mason III
Administrative Law Judge- 13 -