Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Establishes a federal process allowing adult survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, sexual assault, or similar acts to request that vehicle manufacturers or their agents terminate or disable another person’s access to connected vehicle services. Covered providers must act within two business days where feasible, protect survivor data confidentiality, not charge fees, and provide notices and assistance; technical infeasibility is allowed with required explanation.
Due process: conviction not required versus concerns about false claims
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change with specific operational requirements and defined timelines, while delegating additional technical detail to agency rulemaking.
Establishes a federal process allowing adult survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, sexual assault, or similar acts to request that vehicle manufacturers or their agents terminate or disable another person’s access to connected vehicle services.
Covered providers must act within two business days where feasible, protect survivor data confidentiality, not charge fees, and provide notices and assistance; technical infeasibility is allowed with required explanation.
The FCC (with NHTSA) must propose rules within 180 days and finalize regulations within two years.
Content is targeted and safety‑oriented (increases chances), but regulatory burdens, industry/legal concerns, and preemption make passage uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change with specific operational requirements and defined timelines, while delegating additional technical detail to agency rulemaking. It provides explicit definitions, survivor protections, and confidentiality rules but omits fiscal acknowledgement, comprehensive accountability/enforcement mechanisms, and detailed safeguards against misuse.
Due process: conviction not required versus concerns about false claims
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Due process: conviction not required versus concerns about false claims
Likely supportive because the bill creates fast, low-cost tools for survivors to cut off abusive remote access to vehicles, emphasizes confidentiality, and prohibits fees.
May want stronger enforcement, limits on preemption, and tighter requirements on retained data and provider accountability.
Generally favorable but cautious: supports clear, time-bound protections for survivors while noting implementation and fraud-prevention challenges.
Wants precise technical standards, cost estimates, and a reasonable compliance timeline to avoid unintended consequences.
Skeptical: concerned the bill expands federal regulatory authority, preempts state law, and permits significant action without criminal conviction.
Views may emphasize property, contract, and due-process protections and worry about costs and federal overreach.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is targeted and safety‑oriented (increases chances), but regulatory burdens, industry/legal concerns, and preemption make passage uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Due process: conviction not required versus concerns about false claims
Content is targeted and safety‑oriented (increases chances), but regulatory burdens, industry/legal concerns, and preemption make passage u…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change with specific operational requirements and defined timelines, while delegating additional technical detail to agency rul…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.