CASA has been used in reproductive medicine and pathology laboratories for over 25 years, yet the 'fertility industry' generally remains sceptical and has avoided automation, despite clear weaknesses in manual semen analysis. Early implementers had difficulty in validating CASA-Mot instruments against recommended manual methods (haemocytometer) due to the interference of seminal debris and non-sperm cells, which also affects the accuracy of grading motility. Both the inability to provide accurate sperm counts and a lack of consensus as to the value of sperm kinematic parameters appear to have continued to have a negative effect on CASA-Mot's reputation. One positive interpretation from earlier work is that at least one or more measures of sperm velocity adds clinical value to the semen analysis, and these are clearly more objective than any manual motility analysis. Moreover, recent CASA-Mot systems offer simple solutions to earlier problems in eliminating artefacts and have been successfully validated for sperm concentration; as a result, they should be viewed with more confidence in relation to motility grading. Sperm morphology and DNA testing both require an evidence-based consensus and a well-validated (reliable, reproducible) assay to be developed before automation of either can be of real clinical benefit.