This theoretical paper identifies elements that endorse the impact of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in the migration from an individual transportation consumption (ownership) to Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) usage mindset-futurelly, autonomous-, through a literature review that analyses vehicle’s usage time throughout a day, costs associated to the ownership of a vehicle compared to MaaS options and variables associated with MaaS management resulting on a causal model that relates AV-MaaS to parking lot distribution (vehicleanchorage), total mobility cost, practicality, vehicle miles driven, demand and reaction time as well as potential variables among innovation adoption and difussion models that might encourage or discourage AVs willigness to use. The outcome based on the literature review suggests that funtional usage of AVs under MaaS model should face no barriers once innovation adoption and difusion elements that could disparage AVs willigness-to-use–like trust and perceived risk-are eliminated; indeed, the advantages of autonomous driving are an incentive for MaaS to early-adopt the technology. In order to make it popular, Autonomous MaaS will require a fine tunning on balancing variables such as response time, availability (versus demand) and vehicle-anchorage on different geographic regions in order to gain efficiency of their vehicle fleet while satisfactorily attending their customers. Nevertheless, the existent emotional conection between drivers and their vehicles, whether as a symbolic public display of status and self-identity or as a hedonistic tool should be a challenge for both ownership and usage models. Social motivations could be attended by owned-AVs while MaaS may encounter more challenges; personal (hedonistic) motivations for car usage, on the other hand, compromises both approaches. Albeit no studies were found confronting adoption and difussion of inovation models (and its variables) and AVs, this paper hypothetizes a combined model may be specifically suitable for this technology, having ‘perceived usefulness’,‘attitude toward behavior’,‘social influence’,‘inovativeness’ and ‘effort expectancy’as AVs willingness-to-use catalysts, while ‘joy’,‘control/safety/discomfort’,‘age/gender’and ‘ease of use’may generate an opposite effect.