Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House pauses bill to declare vehicle owners hold event-data ‘black box’ rights amid privacy concerns
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB127, which would codify that vehicle owners own data recorded by event data recorders (so-called 'black boxes'). Sponsors and critics clashed over lienholders, rental agencies and marketing risks; members voted to circle the bill for further work.
Representative Lifferth brought House Bill 127 to the floor as a privacy-protection measure, saying "this law would codify that the owner of the vehicle is the owner of the data." The bill would extend statutory protections to event data recorders by making vehicle owners — and jointly, lienholders in certain circumstances — the decisionmakers for release of recorder data.
During extended questioning, members raised hypothetical scenarios to probe legal and practical consequences. Representative Greenwood asked whether an insurance company that pays a claim and takes title would own the data; Lifferth answered "yes" if the insurer owns the vehicle after settlement and recommended wiping data before resale. Representatives Cunningham and Byrd pressed on whether a buyer of a used car or a lienholder could later be held responsible for data recorded before their ownership.
Representative Vandraig and Representative Hutchings warned of broader privacy and commercial risks. Hutchings cited a Washington State debate that used similar vehicle data in proposals for mileage-based road-user charges and for traffic enforcement, cautioning that the recorders can reveal precise travel routes and timings. He argued that data ‘‘is very personal’’ and that once access is opened up it could be monetized. Representative Nielsen countered that the bill fills a current statutory gap and "seems to be structured to protect our personal data from others where there are currently no protections."
Lawmakers also questioned how the bill treats rental agencies and lienholders. Lifferth said rental agencies would own the recorder data for cars they rent and that lienholder access generally requires an entitlement to possession (for example after default). Multiple members asked for clearer language on when a non-owner may access data and whether possession rights should be tied to default.
Because members requested further clarification about ownership definitions, exceptions for lienholders and practical mechanics for clearing or restricting data access, Representative Deid moved to circle HB127 so sponsors and staff could redraft. The motion to circle passed, removing the bill from immediate floor consideration.
