Bill to let abuse survivors disable remote vehicle tracking advances with technical questions

Representative Tiffany Roberts told the Judiciary Committee LD 2120 creates a statutory process allowing survivors of abuse to request that a manufacturer or connected-service provider terminate another person's remote access to a vehicle's connected services. The bill's stated goals are narrow: enable survivors to stop remote monitoring or commands tied to telematics accounts while preserving ownership rights and avoiding financial or procedural barriers.

Roberts described practical protections in the draft: providers would have to respond within specified timeframes, could not impose fees or condition action on third-party approval, and must prioritize survivor safety when providing notice to the person whose access is removed. "Modern vehicles now include connected services... these features have been misused in an abusive relationship to monitor, harass, or interfere with the survivor's ability to move freely," Roberts said.

Industry witnesses and domestic-violence advocates generally supported the policy objective but flagged numerous implementation questions. Elizabeth Frazier of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said some options in the bill are narrowly focused on disabling an individual's access while another provision allows full disabling of connected services — and she asked for clarity on when manufacturers would choose each option and how a survivor would reconnect services. Advocates from the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence agreed on the need for protections but requested stronger survivor-centered drafting and flagged the balance between enabling access removal and preserving law-enforcement and safety uses of telematics data.

Committee members probed ownership and possession scenarios (sole ownership, financed or leased vehicles, and co-owned cars), whether disabling services could affect warranties or insurance coverage, how law enforcement would retain the ability to access vehicle telematics for stolen-vehicle or missing-person investigations, and how the 90-day data-retention rule would affect evidence preservation. The sponsor and witnesses agreed to provide details and to work with stakeholders on clarifying ownership proofs, reconnection instructions for survivors, and the interplay with leases and finance agreements.

Next steps: committee closed the public hearing and asked staff and stakeholders to resolve technical questions and provide draft amendments for the work session.