An epic battle looms between the titans of the auto industry and the Golden State of California, heading toward a June 30 deadline that could shutter the sale of new and used cars in the nation’s No. 1 car market on July 1. At the crux of the conflict: a new state privacy measure ostensibly passed to shield victims of domestic abuse that auto manufacturers say is too technologically challenging to implement by that date and that could cripple auto sales across California.
The warning came from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the Washington lobbying group representing almost every brand sold in the U.S., including GM, Ford, Toyota and VW, which on Tuesday issued an urgent plea to lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom to enact legislation delaying specific parts of the law. Failing that, the group warned in an alert Tuesday, “there is substantial risk that auto sales in California will be suspended.”
The California law, the domestic violence shield SB 1394 which lawmakers enacted last year, was intended to make it harder for those committing abuse to use technology in vehicles that can allow remote tracking, unlocking and operation via a smartphone app. New vehicles contain systems that enable drivers to view location of vehicles, start vehicles and unlock doors from an app.
1. SB 1394 Mandates Two Core Protections for Survivors
SB 1394 in California ensures two main protections for domestic abuse survivors of connected car technology: Vehicle manufacturers must create a secure and easily accessible way to terminate someone else’s access and ability to remotely control a vehicle by the order of a restraining order or documentation of the survivors validity. A manufacturer cannot take more than two business days after receiving a request to comply. They have also instituted requirements for vehicles to have an accessible in vehicle feature to disable location sharing directly.
SB 1394 Core Requirements:
- Survivors can terminate remote access
- Manufacturers must act within two days
- In-vehicle location disable required
- Valid documentation needed to request
- Both protections must be simple
The bill passed the legislative session by a decisive bipartisan margin in support of keeping the most at-risk people out of tech devices which record and track the vehicle’s whereabouts, without their consent. This particular “response period of two days” is necessary for a survivor in immediate danger who will wait for weeks without any recourse as an abuser continues to record the location of a vehicle which they share and utilize.
2. Automakers Complied with the First Requirement but Not the Second
While they insist their members completely agree with the goals of the law to protect customers, auto companies say they’ve already handled the first challenge. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports its members say they have set up an online way for consumers to stop connected service access in two days as outlined in the law. But the in-car tech requirement is a complex engineering problem that’s “unfeasible” given the July 1 date. “ compliance is not possible this year.”
Industry Compliance Status:
- Online termination process already implemented
- Two-day window requirement being met
- In-vehicle mechanism deemed too complex
- July 1 deadline called impossible
- Alliance supports the law’s intent
An Engineering Change Versus A Policy Change. Setting up an on-line interface for dealing with requests by surviving relatives is a relatively simple and easy to do admin change. An engineering change like making a vehicle in-car control to block location sharing that won’t screw up other functions is a whole different kettle of worms that needs validation and integration across tens of thousands of different versions of cars.
3. Automakers Fear Unintended Consequences From a Rushed Fix
These proposed requirements, says the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, aren’t as easy to implement as a quick software fix for cars already out there. ” Connected service functions need to be designed, tested and validated properly so that we don’t cause unexpected issues on other aspects of the vehicle’s functionality,” it said. ” An improperly done connectivity function might prevent the navigation system from working correctly or emergency call features, such as OnStar, vehicle tracking and other systems, such as advance driver assist systems, that depend on location.”
Risks of Rushed Implementation:
- GPS navigation could be disrupted
- Emergency services like OnStar affected
- Theft prevention systems may malfunction
- Driver assistance systems rely on location
- Testing and validation takes significant time
But the issue is much larger for millions of vehicles already plying California’s roads. Vehicles of every make, model, and even trim level employ disparate sets of hardware, software and telematics structures that didn’t have this sort of add-on in mind from the outset. Many cars will never be able to handle the functionality even through software and a complete retrofit installation may be the only way to implement it, with an accordingly much longer lead time.
4. SB 719 Proposes a More Realistic Implementation Timeline
In response to industry input and to address industry concerns about the implementation timeline, a bill, SB 719, was introduced in the Legislature that would amend SB 1394. This bill would not roll back or eviscerate the protections afforded survivors under SB 1394; rather, it would seek to move the implementation timeline to an implementation schedule the industry finds more reasonable.SB 719would still offer a key provision permitting a survivor to disable online access in the home within two days, which remains unaltered.
What SB 719 Proposes:
- Two-day termination protection unchanged
- In-vehicle deadline moved to 2027
- 2028 to 2030 models implemented practicably
- All vehicles covered from 2031 onward
- Multi-year window given to automakers
More concretely, under the proposed rule, the compliance date for an in-vehicle system to prevent location data access would be no earlier than July 1, 2027, on vehicles sold with a model year of 2027 or earlier (so long as it’s technologically feasible); this would transition to as soon as practicable after the sale for vehicle sold with a 2028-2030 model year, and to all vehicle sold with model year of 2031. This will give manufacturers an ample multi-year compliance period to do it right.
5. California’s Market Power Makes This a National Crisis
This issue couldn’t be more pressing, when considering California’s impact on the U.S. As a whole: The Golden State represents almost 10% of all sales of vehicles sold nationally and is far and away largest state auto market in the nation, impacting hundreds of dealerships and thousands of jobs at both global automakers and their respective state dealers should their sales come to a halt.
California’s Automotive Market Weight:
- Accounts for 10% of U.S. sales
- Largest single state market nationally
- Hundreds of dealerships at risk
- Thousands of employees could be affected
- Shockwaves would hit the entire industry
California, the most populous state in the nation with over 39 million residents, generates massive economic activity through a broad base and consequently when anything goes wrong within California it has a larger impact on the rest of the US economy than perhaps any other state. Several large cities with significant economic activity lie within its’ borders: most notably Los Angeles (over 3.8 million residents, the world center of entertainment) and the San Francisco Bay Area (major technology firms are located there and financial institutions) to cite some prominent examples that ensure California holds great political clout.
6. California’s Geography Makes Car Ownership Essential
For most Californians, owing a private vehicle is not so much an issue of life-style as it is one of logistical reality the state’s extreme geographic spread simply precludes that by making car ownership a practical necessity. As America’s third-largest state-a full 163,696 square miles-California contains more than enough distance and more than enough variation from 840 miles of the Pacific coastline to the highest point in the contiguous U.S., Mount Whitney, the lofty height of which rises 14,505 ft above the high Sierras.
Why California Needs Cars:
- Third largest state by area
- Spans 163,696 square miles total
- 840-mile Pacific coastline to traverse
- Vast Central Valley requires personal transport
- 58 counties spread across enormous distances
Given this sprawling, disparate expanse stretching across 58 counties from vast San Bernardino County all the way to hyper urban San Francisco County-city any break in car sales would strike at the heart of 39 million people’s personal locomotion. That this disruption would not be a mere blip, but a disruption to life and business across a landmass that is roughly four times bigger than South Korea’s, seems likely to be lost.
7. Real Stalking Cases Drove Lawmakers to Act
The real-life events that put the privacy implications of connected car tech into public view directly drove the demand for SB 1394. As legislative analysts pointed out reports on connected car technologies enabling stalking of susceptible people, California legislators decided to push ahead on the law. While a report claimed women went to vehicle makers only to find they weren’t properly addressed when their partners had used embedded tech to monitor them.
Real Cases Behind the Law:
- Connected tech used for stalking
- Automakers accused of inadequate response
- Woman sued Tesla over stalking
- Husband used Tesla tech to track
- Restraining order was already in place
Such cases one high profile woman took Tesla to court for ignoring claims that her husband had tracked her movements via his vehicle when a domestic abuse protection order was in effect immediately sparked legislative action. For weeks legislators in Sacramento have discussed ways in which connected cars could potentially be abused to endanger domestic victims.
8. Some Observers Call the Sales Halt Threat a Lobbying Tactic
Despite the dire warnings by the auto manufacturers that sales will stop, many industry insiders consider the possibility of the market shutdown to be remote, stating that it is likely a “high stakes” negotiating and lobbying ploy to push the bill through. In addition, it states that if such auto sales shutdown would occur, it would largely be self-imposed, given that automakers poured billions for years into systems to track and capture our whereabouts and vehicle activity with an ever shrinking capability on privacy.
The Lobbying Tactic Argument:
- Full sales halt deemed highly unlikely
- Seen as pressure to pass SB 719
- Industry built tracking before privacy controls
- Retroactive difficulty is self-created problem
- Privacy was not a foundational design element
The notion that layering in privacy tools retroactively constitutes a significant engineering task strikes privacy advocates as proof that customer privacy wasn’t among the design principles of connected vehicle systems in the first place. The notion that an auto industry that’s been busily gathering our location and behavioral information for years can’t currently figure out how to provide customers a straightforward option to restrict its data collection is cause for inquiry into who or what drove this “design”.
9. The Debate Reflects a Growing National Conversation
Indeed, the privacy debate in California mirrors an ongoing, rapid national dialogue on connected vehicle privacy that extends far beyond state boundaries. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation supports these kinds of safeguards at the federal level, endorsing the Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act, a bipartisan bill that would empower domestic violence survivors nationwide to disconnect a partner from their vehicle’s shared connected service.
The National Policy Dimension:
- Industry backs federal bipartisan legislation
- Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act proposed
- Would cover survivors in all 50 states
- Industry wants a standardized national solution
- California setting precedent for nation
The combination of industry enthusiasm for a federal remedy with outright contempt for the California deadline indicates the most basic strategic calculus: a national-standard solution is infinitely simpler to construct and impose at scale than 50 state-by-state mandates, each with its own deadlines and engineering parameters. By leading on this issue, California could inadvertently be the trigger for forcing a holistic solution.
10. The Outcome Will Set a Precedent for the Digital Age
Things are in the fast and furious phase with July 1 on our doorstep. A bill, SB 719, which has had support by unanimity in both houses so far, is still waiting on the Assembly Appropriations Committee and an eleventh-hour objection from the Consumer Federation of California will not help. For an extension on July 1 to matter the bill has to pass both full houses and be signed by Governor Newsom by month-end.
What Happens Next:
- SB 719 awaiting Assembly Appropriations vote
- Consumer Federation of California opposing it
- Must pass Assembly Senate and Governor
- Deadline is end of current month
- Outcome will set national precedent
But this battle, being waged in the Golden State, addresses what might prove the definitive question of our age the confluence of soaring technological advances, individual privacy, and personal safety. While cars will undoubtedly provide us with newfound opportunities thanks to their growing interconnectedness, this will surely be offset with significant, emerging security risks. Whether, in the final analysis, vehicle-selling becomes easier or harder in California as a result of this will pave the way for how we ultimately regulate technology’s impacts on vulnerable people.
