Automakers back bill letting them sever app access for domestic violence survivors

Wayne Weikle, speaking for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told the House Judiciary Committee on May 20 that Section 4 of House Bill 223 would allow automakers to sever a remote connection between a vehicle and a user’s phone app when a domestic violence survivor presents a restraining order or similar court decree.

“The Alliance for Automotive Innovation is a DC trade association that represents the automakers that manufacture nearly 95% of all new cars sold in The US each year,” Weikle said, and described the section as consistent with a federal bill his group drafted, H.R. 2110. “It just says that if an abuser presents with a restraining order or other court decree to an automaker, that the automaker can sever that connection to the app.”

Weikle said the language also provides liability protection for automakers who act under the statute and includes an “infeasibility” exception for vehicles that cannot be disconnected remotely. He described practical constraints: automakers and suppliers use different telematics systems, older cars on the road may lack disconnect capabilities, and some models require in-vehicle interaction to change settings. “Automaker development cycles are long. They take 3 to 7 years,” he said, adding that about 260,000,000 vehicles are already on the road with varying capabilities.

Committee members asked about technical fixes and misuse risks. Representative Angela asked, “Isn't it possible to require certain information be entered like a password or passcode that only the user, like the owner of the vehicle would have?” Weikle replied that in many cases the abuser set up the account or password and that passwords alone would not reliably protect survivors. He also warned that a simple “factory reset” or single push button to sever connections could be misused by car thieves or carjackers to evade recovery.

Weikle noted that implementing disconnection could require contacting third parties such as telematics providers and, potentially, cellular carriers. He cited OnStar as an example of a separate company that may hold telematics access even when the manufacturer is contacted. The witness said the Alliance has filed complementary federal legislation, H.R. 2110 (sponsored by Rep. Debbie Dingell), with about 22 cosponsors, and that similar state bills are moving in Connecticut and Louisiana.

The committee did not take formal action on the provision during the hearing. The committee chair said the testimony was informational and indicated plans to continue work on the topic in the interim and to revisit it at the start of the next session. “We’ll probably have you back at the start of next year,” the chair said.

The discussion highlighted tradeoffs the committee must weigh: giving survivors a reliable, legal pathway to cut an abuser’s access to vehicle telematics while avoiding new avenues for theft or interfering with third-party contracts and systems. No amendments or votes on Section 4 were made at the hearing; lawmakers signaled further drafting and stakeholder talks in the off session.