For automakers that have poured billions into autonomy, Level 3 offers a potential near-term payoff. By allowing drivers to reclaim time during highway travel, manufacturers hope to create a feature customers will pay for—either upfront or through subscriptions.
“We can start saving them time immediately, and do it in a very affordable way,” said Doug Field, chief electric vehicle, digital and design officer at Ford Motor. Ford plans to introduce an eyes-off system on more affordable electric models beginning in 2028.
Yet even as some companies accelerate development, others are questioning whether Level 3 is commercially viable—or even desirable.
A Costly Middle Ground
Level 3 systems allow the car to manage driving under specific conditions, typically on highways, while shifting responsibility back to the driver when necessary. That handoff is precisely where critics see risk.
A recent survey by consultancy McKinsey & Company estimates that developing a Level 3 system for highway use can cost up to $1.5 billion—roughly double the investment required for Level 2 systems that operate on city streets but still require constant driver supervision.
Nearly all assisted-driving systems currently on the market, including Tesla’s Full Self-Driving feature, are classified as Level 2. Drivers must remain attentive at all times. Beyond Ford, companies that have announced plans for Level 3 systems include General Motors and Honda Motor.
But some industry veterans remain skeptical.
“We don't know if Level 3 ever makes financial sense,” Paul Thomas, president of the North America business at Bosch, said at CES in January.
John Krafcik, former CEO of Waymo and now a board member at Rivian, was even more blunt: “Those carmakers who have attempted an L3 system, and the consumers who have tried it, are finding that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.”
Companies Reassess Their Plans
A decade ago, auto executives predicted widespread autonomous vehicles by the mid-2020s. Instead, technical hurdles, regulatory ambiguity and soaring costs have slowed deployment.
Some companies have already pulled back. Mercedes-Benz, the only automaker to introduce Level 3 technology in the U.S., recently halted its program after limited speeds, strict operating conditions and geographic restrictions dampened demand. The company is now focusing on supervised city-driving features, though it plans to launch an upgraded Level 3 system in the coming years.
Stellantis shelved its Level 3 efforts last year, citing high costs, technological challenges and uncertain consumer appetite.
Meanwhile, Tesla has chosen a different path. Rather than pursuing eyes-off personal vehicles, the company is betting on full autonomy. It has launched a small robotaxi service and aims to expand into several U.S. cities by the first half of 2026—putting it in more direct competition with Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet.
The Handoff Problem
A central technological challenge of Level 3 is designing a system capable of detecting when human intervention is required, issuing a warning and continuing to operate safely until the driver resumes control.
“That’s going football fields down a road, minimum six seconds, probably much more,” said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor specializing in autonomous vehicle regulation.
From a regulatory perspective, Smith argues, it may make more sense to move directly to Level 4 systems—vehicles capable of operating without human oversight within defined areas—if those conditions are broad enough to be useful.
Liability and Legal Uncertainty
Beyond engineering hurdles, liability looms large. Analysts say shifting to eyes-off systems increases the likelihood that automakers, rather than drivers, could be held responsible in crashes.
Legal scholars writing in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal last year warned that without a publicly acceptable regulatory solution clarifying responsibility, Level 3 technology could struggle to reach mass adoption.
Joel Johnson, a strategist who has worked with GM on autonomous programs, said the cost and legal exposure create difficult trade-offs.
“Automakers only have a reason to deploy autonomy strategically to fight Waymo and keep them at bay, or to be able to charge more money,” he said.
China Raises the Stakes
Competitive pressure is intensifying from China. In December, Chinese regulators cleared a vehicle with Level 3 capability for the first time. Brands such as Leapmotor and BYD are already bundling advanced Level 2 driver-assistance features into sticker prices, rather than charging subscription fees.
That approach could ignite a global pricing battle if U.S. and European consumers demand similar capabilities without recurring charges.
“This is a war of global business models,” Johnson said.
A Pivotal Decision Point
The debate over Level 3 underscores a broader strategic crossroads for the auto industry. Eyes-off systems promise incremental progress toward autonomy—and a way to monetize years of research and development. But they also introduce significant cost, engineering complexity and legal ambiguity.
For some automakers, Level 3 may be a necessary bridge. For others, it may be an expensive detour on the road to fully driverless vehicles.