NHTSA Tells Auto Industry Not to Comply With Massachusetts Data Laws

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

nhtsa tells auto industry not to comply with massachusetts data laws

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has advised automakers not to comply with a Massachusetts vehicle telematics rule designed to ensure customers have control over what happens with their private data. It’s the regulators' assertion that companies are obligated to enforce federal standards while suggesting that the state law poses safety concerns.

Interestingly, that’s the exact same claim the automotive lobby was making when the Massachusetts law was up first for debate and leaves one wondering who exactly the NHTSA is advocating for.

It’s no secret that various industries attempting to hoard customer data and redefine what constitutes ownership have created a groundswell of consumer resentment. The situation has even led to the right-to-repair movement advocating for purchasers of devices and equipment (including automobiles) to freely modify and repair products — occasionally resulting in localized legislation protecting consumer rights.

In the case of Massachusetts, the 2020 measure sought to allow independent repair shops to access diagnostic data modern vehicles automatically send directly to dealerships and manufacturers. It passed, approved by nearly 75 percent of voters, and requires manufacturers operating within the state to equip modern cars with a standardized open access data platform that allows third parties to access telematics data.

Automakers see the information as invaluable, offering a wealth of data points to help them determine how to build future products, schedule servicing routines, and which parts to order. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing just about every automaker, even sued to block the Massachusetts law and has likewise asked a federal judge to seek a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Data Access Law.

But the opposition has argued that it’s destroying small businesses by making it difficult for consumers to seek repairs outside of certified service centers owned by the relevant dealerships. Arguments have likewise been made that the information should be owned by the customer and that they should be the ones to determine where it goes.

On Wednesday, Reuters reported that the NHTSA had stepped in to tell automakers not to comply with the Massachusetts law. The agency has said that the "NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to fully comply with their Federal safety obligations.”

From Reuters:

The NHTSA said a malicious actor "could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Massachusetts is seeking to enforce a 2020 ballot initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by voters.
NHTSA added that "open access to vehicle manufacturers’ telematics offerings with the ability to remotely send commands
allows for manipulation of systems on a vehicle, including safety-critical functions such as steering, acceleration, or braking."

However, the above is really more of a problem with vehicular connectivity in general than anything else. If modern vehicles lacked things like over-the-air (OTA) updates or were less reliant on software, this wouldn’t be an issue. The NHTSA seems to be doing little more than protecting the massive companies that have the most to gain by furthering the connectivity agenda.

While it’s rare to see businesses admit to it, automakers understandably want to keep lucrative data for themselves. But they’ve also claimed that opening the door to third parties would require them to remove some of the safety barriers that could make users more vulnerable. That’s debatable when it could be similarly argued they’re already being taken advantage of by the industry. Though it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that malicious actors could take advantage of a more open system.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said "consumers and independent repair shops deserve to know whether they will receive access to vehicle repair data in the manner provided by the law."

Your author is inclined to agree and would prefer customers have the final say on what happens with their data. The value of the information being amassed by the industry cannot be understated and it has certainly helped automakers evolve.

Still, there needs to be a discussion about who has the right to control that data and what exactly constitutes ownership. Having purchased a product seems as though it should be the threshold. But the lines are getting blurry, with corporate actors and the federal government seemingly at odds with the rights of ordinary people.

[Image: CAT SCAPE/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Join the conversation
4 of 17 comments
  • EBFlex EBFlex on Jun 15, 2023

    This administration is astoundingly evil.

    • See 1 previous
    • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Jun 20, 2023

      This is the NHSTA, not the FTC

      "The opposing side flooded the airwaves with commercials making the whole “they’ll be able to remotely control your vehicle!”"

      This is already fact, ask Michael Hastings.

  • William Piper William Piper on Jun 16, 2023

    MA here….the ballot initiative passed here by a decent margin supporting data privacy. The opposing side flooded the airwaves with commercials making the whole “they’ll be able to remotely control your vehicle!” BS. Many of the people featured on those ads were your typical DC “lifers”. Seems they finally got their way using this administration to overturn the people’s vote…..

  • Redapple2 Cadillac and racing. Boy those 2 go together dont they? What a joke. Up there with opening a coffee shop in NYC. EvilGM be clowning. Again.
  • Jbltg Rear bench seat does not match the front buckets. What's up?
  • Theflyersfan The two Louisville truck plants are still operating, but not sure for how much longer. I have a couple of friends who work at a manufacturing company in town that makes cooling systems for the trucks built here. And they are on pins and needles wondering if or when they get the call to not go back to work because there are no trucks being made. That's what drives me up the wall with these strikes. The auto workers still get a minimum amount of pay even while striking, but the massive support staff that builds components, staffs temp workers, runs the logistics, etc, ends up with nothing except the bare hope that the state's crippled unemployment system can help them keep afloat. In a city where shipping (UPS central hub and they almost went on strike on August 1) and heavy manufacturing (GE Appliance Park and the Ford plants) keeps tens of thousands of people employed, plus the support companies, any prolonged shutdown is a total disaster for the city as well. UAW members - you're not getting a 38% raise right away. That just doesn't happen. Start a little lower and end this. And then you can fight the good fight against the corner office staff who make millions for being in meetings all day.
  • Dusterdude The "fire them all" is looking a little less unreasonable the longer the union sticks to the totally ridiculous demands ( or maybe the members should fire theit leadership ! )
  • Thehyundaigarage Yes, Canadian market vehicles have had immobilizers mandated by transport Canada since around 2001.In the US market, some key start Toyotas and Nissans still don’t have immobilizers. The US doesn’t mandate immobilizers or daytime running lights, but they mandate TPMS, yet canada mandates both, but couldn’t care less about TPMS. You’d think we’d have universal standards in North America.