Waymo’s offshore fleet-response setup in the Philippines draws sharp congressional scrutiny

Waymo disclosed during a congressional hearing that some remote human advisors who provide occasional assistance to its autonomous taxis operate from the Philippines, converting a technical support detail into a major policy issue. The exchange occurred at a high-profile Senate Commerce Committee session that also featured other AV developers and lawmakers pressing for consistent national rules to replace the current patchwork of state policies. Senators used recent incidents — including a Jan. 23 Santa Monica episode in which a Waymo vehicle made contact with a child (minor injuries and an NHTSA review) and multiple reports of vehicles failing to yield to stopped school buses — to probe how and when human intervention occurs and how firms preserve evidence. Waymo’s senior safety executive reiterated that remote advisors are advisory only and that on-vehicle autonomy retains ultimate control, but could not provide a public breakdown of how many advisors are offshore versus domestic. Company witnesses said they have pushed software updates in response to school-bus yielding reports and cited analyses of tens of millions of miles that they say show lower serious- and pedestrian-injury collision rates within their operating domains compared with human drivers. Senators and safety advocates argued that overseas assistance complicates cybersecurity, incident investigations and local accountability, especially when public records do not clearly identify a Waymo-registered entity or disclosed partner in the Philippines. Democratic lawmakers at the hearing proposed disclosure requirements for operational metrics — miles driven, injury incidents, unplanned stoppages — and clearer definitions of the roadway and condition envelopes in which systems are certified to operate. Industry witnesses countered that remote support models are analogous to mission control in other transport domains and are used sparingly for rare edge cases, while independent experts said safety hinges on developer practices and urged stronger oversight. The confrontation highlighted a policy gap: Congress lacks routine mechanisms to compel standardized reporting or to clearly define when remote assistance is permissible. Potential near-term outcomes include richer data-sharing mandates with federal agencies like NHTSA, more prescriptive operational limits (for example around school zones), and clearer rules about offshore human-in-the-loop roles. Any new requirements would raise operational costs and could slow rollouts, but proponents argue they would improve transparency, investigative traceability and public trust in robotaxi services. The episode signals broader implications for how autonomy is regulated — whether by the absence of human influence or by a system’s ability to remain safe despite occasional external advice — and will shape liability, certification and deployment strategies for the sector.