Products are selected by our editors, we may earn commission from links on this page.
A car company just told an entire state it would rather stop selling cars than flip a switch. That is not an exaggeration. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the lobbying group behind General Motors, Toyota, and Volkswagen, warned that vehicle sales in California could halt on July 1. The reason sounds small: a law asking carmakers to let domestic violence survivors turn off in-car tracking. The industry says the deadline is unworkable. Survivors and lawmakers see something else happening entirely.
This article was created with the assistance of AI and reviewed by our editorial team for accuracy and clarity.
The Law at the Center of This Fight Was Written for Stalking Survivors
California’s SB 1394 exists because modern cars have quietly become tracking devices. Passed in 2024, the law responds to a documented pattern: abusers using connected car apps to monitor a partner’s location, lock them out, or even remotely control the vehicle. SB 1394 requires automakers to give survivors, with proof like a restraining order, a fast way to cut off that access. Two business days, the law states. The goal is simple. Where the fight starts is the timeline.
Automakers Say the Deadline, Not the Purpose, Is the Real Problem
Automakers are not disputing the purpose of SB 1394, they are disputing the calendar. The Alliance says carmakers already built the online request process the law requires, and that part works today. Their objection is a second requirement: an in-vehicle button to disable location access, arriving by July 1, 2026. Different makes, models, and even trim levels use different hardware, the industry argues. Retrofitting older vehicles, they say, cannot happen through a software update alone.
A Backup Bill Could Push the Real Deadline Years Into the Future
A companion bill, SB 719, is the industry’s requested fix. It would not remove survivor protections already in place, but it would push back the in-vehicle disabling deadline. Under the bill, most vehicles from model year 2027 or older would get until 2027 to comply. Newer models would phase in through 2031. Supporters call it a realistic engineering timeline. Critics call it a four-year delay dressed up as a technical necessity.
Survivor Advocates Aren’t Buying the Industry’s Excuse
Not everyone is convinced the deadline problem is real. Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, a sponsor of SB 1394, has accused automakers of stalling. He argues the industry is using last-minute legislative maneuvers to avoid full accountability to survivors. The core function at stake, turning off a location signal, sounds simple to outside observers. Automakers insist it is anything but simple once real vehicle systems get involved.
The Industry Just Put a Two Million Car Market on the Table
The Alliance is not shy about the stakes it is naming publicly. “Without SB 719 being signed into law before July 1, there is substantial risk that auto sales in California will be suspended,” said Curt Augustine, senior director of state affairs at the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. His statement effectively puts a two million vehicle annual market on the table as leverage. Whether lawmakers see that as a genuine warning or pressure tactic depends entirely on who is asked.
Critics Say the Timing of This Pushback Is No Accident
Herrell sees a pattern rather than a coincidence in the timing of this pushback. “In the dark of night and at the last minute, the auto industry is working overtime to avoid helping protect victims of domestic violence,” he said, describing changes made to SB 719 shortly before the deadline. His group specifically criticized wording that lets automakers skip requirements they deem “technologically infeasible.” That phrase, critics argue, could become a loophole survivors cannot easily challenge in practice.
Automakers Have Already Been Caught Misusing Driver Data Once
This standoff did not appear out of nowhere, automakers have a recent record with driver data. General Motors agreed to a Federal Trade Commission settlement in January 2026 after regulators found it sold location and driving behavior data to insurance brokers without clear consent. California separately fined GM $12.75 million in May 2026 over related violations. The FTC called GM’s conduct “an egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust.” That history frames why some lawmakers distrust the industry’s timeline complaints now.
If Tracking Data Is Too Valuable to Cut Off, That Says Something
Money helps explain why untangling this data is harder than automakers admit publicly. Toyota has explored paying drivers directly for access to their own vehicle data, according to industry reporting. That detail undercuts the claim that location tracking is simply too complex to switch off quickly. If a feature is valuable enough to pay customers for, disabling it fast may be less about engineering limits and more about what companies stand to lose.
A Simple Switch Became Leverage the Moment Someone Asked for It
Sacramento will likely find a compromise before July 1 arrives, because a state without legal car sales helps no one, including the automakers threatening it. What this fight reveals will outlast whatever deadline gets negotiated. A switch that survivors need built quickly turned into leverage the moment a company was asked to give up control of a data stream. The next time an automaker calls something too complicated, remember what took priority here first.