Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survivor, advocates press lawmakers for bill to let victims cut remote access to vehicles
Summary
A domestic‑violence survivor and advocates urged passage of HB 5162, which would let people revoke remote data access to vehicles (location and remote control) when an abuser tries to use that connection to stalk or endanger them. Witnesses described cases in which buyers or prior owners retained remote access
A survivor of domestic violence told the General Law Committee on Feb. 10 that remote access features in modern vehicles can be used as stalking tools — and urged lawmakers to pass HB 5162 so victims can more readily revoke third‑party access to location and remote‑control systems.
Marlene Melendez described months in hiding after a restraining order while her abuser tracked or targeted her. ‘‘When I finally made the decision to escape, I thought I would be free. Instead, I found myself facing a new battle,’’ she told the committee, saying she had to change cars repeatedly and feared the abuser’s ability to find and follow her.
The bill would require stronger notice and a revocation path for vehicle owners or victims so that dealerships, manufacturers or service providers must disable remote access to a vehicle’s location or remote control when an appropriate order is presented or under other defined circumstances. Advocates framed the bill as narrowly targeted to protect victims while preserving legitimate, routine uses of vehicle telematics such as emergency crash response, fleet tracking and owner‑authorized services.
Several lawmakers pressed practical questions: how would revocation work if access and accounts were created by prior owners, how fast would a manufacturer or dealer disable access, and what proof would a survivor need to present? Survivors and advocates urged judges, law enforcement and manufacturers to coordinate so any revocation mechanism is fast, low‑cost and respects privacy. Senator Kissel, who has worked on related proposals in prior sessions, said a broader consumer‑privacy bill could incorporate vehicle geolocation as a category of “sensitive data,” but urged immediate steps to protect victims while the larger privacy bill is refined.
What’s next: Committee members asked proponents for draft language clarifying the revocation process, required evidence and emergency procedures; no vote was taken.
Sources: Testimony by Marlene Melendez and others at the General Law Committee public hearing (Feb. 10, 2025).
