cars – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Volkswagen Plans To Shift From Selling Cars To Offering ‘Vehicles On Demand’ – And Grabbing Even More Data About Drivers

from the you-don't-own-it,-you-only-drive-it dept

Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the well-known car manufacturer Volkswagen (VW). An article in the German Auto Motor und Sport magazine reports on a major shift in the way that VWFS, and hence VW, wants to operate (all translations by DeepL):

Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) is planning to introduce a new mobility platform in 2025 that will push traditional vehicle sales into the background.

Instead, the use of vehicles, summarised under the term ‘Vehicle on Demand’, will come to the fore, according to a report in ‘Automobilwoche’. This platform, which is to be launched in the relevant markets in the first quarter of 2025 as the successor to the Europcar app, marks a significant change in Volkswagen’s business model.

The CEO of VWFS, Christian Dahlheim, explained:

In future, customers will be able to use the [new] app to take advantage of various mobility offers such as leasing, rental, subscriptions or car sharing. Volkswagen will not provide all offers itself, but will work together with strategic partners, particularly in the area of car sharing.

Because VW will retain ownership over the entire life of the vehicles, it will be able to gather even more data about them and the people who drive them:

Another advantage of this strategy is the comprehensive access to data, both about the vehicles and about the customers. Volkswagen currently collects data on around eight million vehicles, and this figure will continue to rise in the future. This data enables VWFS to determine the optimal marketing channel for returned vehicles – be it remarketing as a leasing vehicle, a subscription, use in car sharing or sale as a used car.

The opportunity to sell many more used cars is an important aspect of the shift to Vehicles on Demand. According to Auto Motor und Sport, VW sold 142,000 used cars in 2020, expects to sell 462,000 this year, and hopes that will rise to a million vehicles in the future. With the new business model, VW wants to become one of the world’s largest used car dealers. Perhaps inevitably, AI will be applied to the data gathered about each vehicle, particularly in order to carry out “automated residual value forecasting”. According to Dahlheim:

The [new] platform should make it possible to optimise prices and residual values, taking into account capacities, logistics costs and market differences within Europe. This opens up new opportunities to market vehicles in different markets depending on demand and thus optimise price leverage.

It’s rather ironic that a company originally tasked by Hitler to produce an affordable vehicle that every German family would be able to buy (hence the name “Volkswagen” –– “People’s Car”) wants to shift to a business model where nobody buys one.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky.

Filed Under: adolf hitler, app, cars, data, leasing, ownership, rental car, surveillance, tracking, vehicles
Companies: volkswagen

EU’s ‘Going Dark’ Expert Group Publishes 42-Point Surveillance Plan For Access To All Devices And Data At All Times

from the they-never-give-up dept

Techdirt has been covering the disgraceful attempts by the EU to break end-to-end encryption — supposedly in order to “protect the children” — for two years now. An important vote that could have seen EU nations back the proposal was due to take place recently. The vote was cancelled — not because politicians finally came to their senses, but the opposite. Those backing the new law were worried the latest draft might not be approved, and so removed it from the agenda, to allow a little more backroom persuasion to be applied to holdouts.

Although this “chat control” law has been the main focus of the EU’s push for more surveillance of innocent citizens, it is by no means the end of it. As the German digital rights site Netzpolitik reports, work is already underway on further measures, this time to address the non-existent “going dark” threat to law enforcement:

The group of high-level experts had been meeting since last year to tackle the so-called „going dark“ problem. The High-Level Group set up by the EU was characterized by a bias right from the start: The committee is primarily made up of representatives of security authorities and therefore represents their perspective on the issue.

Given the background and bias of the expert group, it’s no surprise that its report, “Recommendations from the High-Level Group on Access to Data for Effective Law Enforcement”, is a wish-list of just about every surveillance method. The Pirate Party Member of the European Parliament Patrick Breyer has a good summary of what the “going dark” group wants:

according to the 42-point surveillance plan, manufacturers are to be legally obliged to make digital devices such as smartphones, smart homes, IoT devices, and cars monitorable at all times (“access by design”). Messenger services that were previously securely encrypted are to be forced to allow for interception. Data retention, which was overturned by the EU Court of Justice, is to be reenacted and extended to OTT internet communications services such as messenger services. “At the very least”, IP connection data retention is to be required to be able to track all internet activities. The secure encryption of metadata and subscriber data is to be prohibited. Where requested by the police, GPS location tracking should be activated by service providers (“tracking switch”). Uncooperative providers are to be threatened with prison sentences.

It’s an astonishing list, not least for the re-appearance of data retention, which was thrown out by the EU’s highest court in 2014. It’s a useful reminder that even when bad laws are overturned, constant vigilance is required to ensure that they don’t come back at a later date.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky.

Filed Under: cars, chat control, children, cjeu, data retention, encryption, eu, european parliament, going dark, gps, iot, location tracking, messenger services, netzpolitik, ott, patrick breyer, pirate party, smart homes

Automakers, Insurance Companies, And Apps Are Non-Transparently Spying On Your Driving Habits And Hiking Your Insurance Rates

from the there-is-no-privacy dept

Tue, Jun 11th 2024 05:24am - Karl Bode

In 2023, Mozilla released a report noting that modern cars had the worst security and privacy standards of any major technology industry the organization tracks. That was followed by a great NYT report by Kashmir Hill earlier this year showing how automakers routinely hoover up oodles of consumer driving and phone info, then sell access to that data to auto insurance companies.

Originally, Hill found that GM was collecting both driver behavior and phone data, selling access to LexisNexis, which, in turn, sold access to insurance companies. Insurance companies then used that data to raise rates on the worst drivers — but also to non-transparently justify raising rates on everybody (“trust us, we have insider data we won’t show you indicating you should be paying significantly more.”).

Since nobody in this chain is being transparent about it, GM is now facing dozens of different lawsuits.

But Hill has found a thread and just keeps pulling. Her latest report on automakers documents how auto insurance companies are still gleaning data from apps on your phone that already have a problematic history on privacy and location tracking. Such as Life360, which was caught a few years ago funneling sensitive user location data to a broad number of barely regulated and extremely dodgy data brokers.

And they’re still doing it without being particularly clear with consumers, who routinely seem shocked when they learn the scope of the practices:

“No one who realizes what they’re doing would consent,” said Ms. Lomax, who canceled her subscription.

Auto insurance companies can buy detailed consumer behavior and location data from automakers, telecoms, app makers, or data brokers. And because the U.S. is too corrupt to pass a meaningful modern privacy law, or even implement some basic regulatory guardrails for data brokers, the whole thing has devolved into a privacy shitshow where we get at least one major scandal a week. And those scandals are getting progressively worse and more dangerous the longer the issue goes unchecked.

Companies in Hill’s stories can claim they’re being transparent or not sharing your data, but intentionally boxed in regulators like the FTC lack the resources or staff to police these issues at the scale they’re happening, so it’s not like anybody is consistently following up to make sure. Consumers generally have absolutely no idea they’re being closely monitored and how this data can be used against them, and companies often see little punishment outside of some brief public shaming to rein in bad behavior.

If this was all properly regulated and entirely transparent, there could be a future where everybody has a openly calculated driver score, and you technically pay lower rates for auto-insurance based on very clear metrics. Hill’s piece flirts with how more accurate, personalized driving and behavior data could prove particularly helpful for marginalized people harmed by current insurance practices that unfairly discriminate based on stuff like education level or credit scores.

But we’re talking about private companies motivated to pursue quarterly revenue bumps regardless of reality or ethics. Consumer advocates worry insurance companies are incentivized to use more detailed user behavior data not to improve things, but to justify entirely new bad decisions, like charging people who work the night shift more money because they drive at night.

A cornerstone of exploiting improved data collection to boost quarterly revenues will continue to be making sure the collection and analysis isn’t transparent to the public.

At some point there will be significant reform and a (hopefully) well crafted new federal law governing all of this, probably only after there’s a massive, unprecedented scandal. But right now it’s extremely difficult to get these companies to even be entirely honest about what they’re even doing.

Filed Under: automakers, cars, drivers, privacy, security, surveillance, vehicles

FTC Hints At Regulatory Action Against Automakers For Terrible Privacy Practices

from the I-can't-drive-55 dept

Tue, May 21st 2024 05:29am - Karl Bode

In 2023, Mozilla released a report noting that modern cars had the worst security and privacy standards of any major technology industry the organization tracks. That was followed by a NYT report earlier this year showing how automakers routinely hoover up oodles of consumer driving and phone info, then sell access to that data to auto insurance companies looking to justify rate hikes.

The very least the auto industry can do is make these transactions clear to car owners, but most of the time they can’t even do that.

Now it looks like the FTC might be considering legal action against the auto industry for lax privacy standards. An FTC blog post indicates that the “connected car” industry has been on the agency’s “radar for years,” and hinted at potential future actions:

“Car manufacturers—and all businesses—should take note that the FTC will take action to protect consumers against the illegal collection, use, and disclosure of their personal data.”

The FTC is being prodded into action by the concerns of Senator Ron Wyden, whose office launched an investigation finding that automakers routinely collect not only driver behavior data but data from connected phones, sell access to a myriad of often dodgy third parties and data brokers, and routinely fail to make any of those transactions meaningfully clear to car owners.

Usually customer acceptance for such monetization of data isn’t buried in your car paperwork; it’s buried in the user agreement connected to automakers’ car apps or road-side assistant apps. This is, it should be noted, the same industry that’s fighting tooth and nail against “right to repair” reforms under the pretense that it just cares a whole lot about consumer privacy and security.

Of course the FTC lacks the resources, staff, and authority (quite by lobbying design) to meaningfully police U.S. tech privacy violations at the scale they’re happening. And even should the FTC take action, any fines would likely comprise a tiny fraction of the money made from non-transparently and haphazardly monetizing drivers’ every fart for the better part of the last two decades.

And whatever fines that do get levied are often reduced further (or eliminated entirely) thanks to multi-year legal fights within an increasingly corrupt court system.

Still, it’s important to try to have standards. It’s what separates us from potatoes.

As Wyden’s office has made clear, the stakes for our corrupt failure to pass baseline privacy laws or regulate data brokers continue to rise. Demonstrated pretty clearly by his office’s recent discovery that a data broker had been selling abortion clinic location data to right wing activists, who then took to targeting vulnerable women with health care disinformation.

But between regulators that have been steadily boxed in by thirty-years of lobbying and corrupt court rulings, and a Congress that’s too corrupt to function, it seems like we’ll be waiting a long time to see meaningful reform on this front. And that reform is only likely to come courtesy of a privacy scandal whose scope and impact we probably can’t imagine.

Filed Under: automakers, cars, data brokers, ftc, location data, privacy, privacy law, ron wyden, security

Welcome To The Brave New World Of Vehicle Insurance Fraud Powered By Shallowfakes

from the I-can’t-believe-my-eyes dept

The harms of deepfakes have been evident for a while. Recent examples include a Biden deepfake designed to influence voters, and the rising use of AI “nudification” apps to produce deepfake nudes of students, often female minors. But alongside the application of sophisticated AI programs to produce deepfakes there are other, lower-tech scams, often known as “shallowfakes”. An article in the Guardian explains “shallowfakes can be created using conventional editing software on a phone and apps such as Photoshop.” This is leading to a “surge in fraud cases” according to the article, involving vehicle insurance claims:

[The insurer] Allianz, which includes the general insurance arm of LV=, said in one case an individual had a photo of his van posted on his social media page as part of his business and ended up having a claim pursued in his name for an accident that never took place.

LV= received images of his vehicle from the fraudsters that seemed to show the front bumper had been cracked in the alleged accident, along with a fake repair invoice for more than £1,000 [around $1,250].

The LV= fraud team investigated and found the photo was identical to the one on the social media page, except for the fact that the image had been doctored to show the fake damage.

The article mentions another example of how shallowfakes are being used. Fraudsters are finding vehicles regarded as total losses by insurers on sites selling them for salvage, and then placing a different license plate on the image using digital editing tools. False insurance claims are then made with the shallowfake vehicle image.

These low-tech images probably aren’t hard to spot, but moving from shallowfakes to deepfakes could make that more difficult. In any case, the rise of both kinds of manipulation underlines once more that we live increasingly in a world where images and videos can no longer be taken at face value.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky.

Filed Under: biden, cars, deepfakes, fraud, insurance, nudification, photoshop, shallowfakes
Companies: allianz

GM Pinky Swears It Will Stop Selling Driving Data To Insurers After Lawsuits, NYT Bombshell

from the I-can't-drive-55 dept

Wed, Mar 27th 2024 05:30am - Karl Bode

Earlier this month the New York Times published a major story confirming that automakers collect driver behavior data then sell it to a long list of companies. That includes insurance companies, who are now jacking up insurance rates if they see behavior in the dataset they don’t like.

The absolute bare minimum you could could expect from the auto industry here is that they’re doing this in a way that’s clear to car owners. But of course they aren’t; they’re burying “consent” deep in the mire of some hundred-page end user agreement nobody reads, usually not related to the car purchase itself but the apps consumers now use to manage roadside assistance and other programs.

So not surprisingly, GM was subsequently sued. And now the company finds itself on an apology tour, which apparently includes pinky swearing that they will stop selling data to insurance companies:

“OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk,” a G.M. spokeswoman, Malorie Lucich, said in an emailed statement. “Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies.”

Of course if “consumer trust ” was actually a priority, GM would have done the absolute bare minimum here and openly and clearly informed consumers this was happening. Instead, like most companies, they buried it fifty pages deep in the end user agreement for embedded support and monitoring services.

And they did that because they know there’s no meaningful penalty.

The U.S still has no meaningful modern privacy law. And U.S. privacy regulators have been steadily defanged, defunded, understaffed and boxed into a corner for the better part of a generation under the pretense that this would unlock vast and untold innovative synergies. Instead, as consumer groups and privacy activists long warned, it created an environment rife for widespread abuse.

Florida resident Romeo Chicco, whose insurance rates skyrocketed after his Cadillac collected his driving data, has filed a complaint seeking class-action status against GM, OnStar and LexisNexis. Federal regulators will also likely come knocking, even if a four year investigation likely results in a fine that’s a tiny percentage of the amount of money GM made from monetizing the data.

At that point automakers (which a recent Mozilla report stated have some of the worst privacy and security standards in all of tech) will have moved on to abusing your privacy in entirely new ways (or in the same way, simply with a few new creative wrinkles). Such is life in a country that’s too corrupt to pass a meaningful privacy law — or adequately support the agencies tasked with existing legal enforcement.

Filed Under: automobiles, cars, fine print, insurance rates, privacy, security, surveillance, vehicles
Companies: gm

Auto Makers Are Selling Data On Your Driving Habits To Your Insurer Without Properly Informing You

from the I-can't-drive-55 dept

Wed, Mar 13th 2024 05:24am - Karl Bode

Last September, Mozilla came out with a privacy study indicating that the auto industry was the worst tech industry the organization tracked. Mozilla found that not only does the industry hoover up a ton of data from your use of vehicles, it collects and monetizes most of the data on your phone. Often without transparency or adequate safeguards:

“**All 25 car brands we researched earned our *Privacy Not Included warning label — making cars the official worst category of products for privacy that we have ever reviewed.**“

Fast forward to this week, and the New York Times’ Kashmir Hill has a new story exploring how the auto industry is also collecting reams of personal driving data, then sharing it with your insurance company. More specifically, automakers are selling access to the data to Lexis Nexis, which is then crafting “risk scores” insurance companies then use to adjust rates. Usually upward.

If consumer approval is even obtained, it’s obtained via fine print buried deep in user agreements either in automakers’ car apps or road-side assistant apps:

“Automakers and data brokers that have partnered to collect detailed driving data from millions of Americans say they have drivers’ permission to do so. But the existence of these partnerships is nearly invisible to drivers, whose consent is obtained in fine print and murky privacy policies that few read.”

Even law professors, who are surely used to reckless treatment of consumer data at this point, were somehow surprised at the cavalier behavior by the auto industry:

“I am surprised,” said Frank Pasquale, a law professor at Cornell University. “Because it’s not within the reasonable expectation of the average consumer, it should certainly be an industry practice to prominently disclose that is happening.”

This is the same auto industry that has been fighting tooth and nail against “right to repair” reforms — in a bid to protect their lucrative repair monopolies — often under the pretense that they’re just that concerned about the consumer privacy ramifications.

Please notice that the absolute bare minimum that the auto industry could be doing here is making this tracking and monetization of your data transparent, and they’re not even doing that. Because they know Congress and U.S. federal regulators, lobbied into apathy over decades, are too corrupt to take meaningful action. At least not at any real, consistent scale.

Again, like countless past scandals, this is the direct byproduct of a country that has proven too corrupt to pass even a baseline privacy law for the internet era. Too corrupt to regulate data brokers. And obsessed with steadily defanging, defunding, under-staffing and curtailing the authority of regulators tasked with overseeing corporations with a broad and reckless disdain for U.S. consumer privacy and safety.

Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. And California regulators are purportedly investigating automaker privacy standards. But a grotesquely corrupt Congress means federal inquiries will likely go nowhere (also keep in mind looming Supreme Court rulings are poised to erode federal regulatory authority further). And any inquiries that do materialize will feature fines that are miniscule compared to the money made from the abuses.

The data-hoovering surveillance economy we’ve created is so lucrative, all the financial incentives point in the wrong directions. And the only thing likely to shake U.S. politicians out of their corrupt stupor is a scandal so extreme — potentially involving mass fatalities or the leaked data of the rich and powerful — that the problem is no longer easy to ignore. And even then, we’ll still probably try.

Filed Under: automakers, cars, consumer protection, data brokers, ftc, privacy, security, surveillance, tracking, vehicles

Tesla Lied To Customers, Blaming Them For Shoddy Parts The Company Knew Were Defective

from the giant-bullshit-machine dept

Thu, Dec 21st 2023 05:19am - Karl Bode

Back in July, Reuters released a bombshell report showing that not only has Tesla aggressively lied about its EV ranges for the better part of the last decade, it created teams whose entire purpose was to lie to customers about it when they called up to complain. The story lasted all of two days in the news cycle before it was supplanted by clickbait stories about a billionaire fist fight that never actually happened.

Now Reuters is back again, with another major story showcasing how for much of that same decade, Tesla routinely blamed customers for the failure of substandard parts the company knew to be defective. The outlet reviewed thousands of Tesla documents and found a pattern where customers would complain about dangerously broken and low-quality parts, only to be repeatedly gaslit by the company:

“Wheels falling off cars at speed. Suspensions collapsing on brand-new vehicles. Axles breaking under acceleration. Tens of thousands of customers told Tesla about a host of part failures on low-mileage cars. The automaker sought to blame drivers for vehicle ‘abuse,’ but Tesla documents show it had tracked the chronic ‘flaws’ and ‘failures’ for years.”

The records show a repeated pattern across tens of thousands of customers where parts would fail, then the customer would be accused of “abusing” their vehicle. They also show that Tesla meticulously tracked part failures, knew many parts were defective, and routinely not only lied to regulators about it, but charged customers to repair parts they knew had high failure rates and were systemically prone to failure:

“Yet the company has denied some of the suspension and steering problems in statements to U.S. regulators and the public– and, according to Tesla records, sought to shift some of the resulting repair costs to customers.”

This is obviously a very different narrative than the one Musk presented last month at that unhinged New York Times DealBook event:

“We make the best cars. Whether you hate me, like me or are indifferent, do you want the best car, or do you not want the best car?”

They are, as it turns out, not the best cars.

And this is before you even touch on the growing pile of corpses caused by the company’s half-cooked and repeatedly misrepresented “full self driving” technology, which last week resulted in the recall of nearly every vehicle that has it. That problem was, as reports have documented in detail, thanks in part to non-engineer Musk over-ruling his actual engineers when it comes to only using cameras.

This comes as a new study shows that Tesla vehicles have the highest accident rate of any brand on the road. As usual, U.S. regulators have generally been asleep or lethargic during most of this, worried that enforcing basic public safety standards would somehow be stifling “innovation.”

The deaths from “full self driving” have been going on for the better part of the last decade, yet the NHTSA only just apparently figured out where its pants were located. But a lot of the problems Reuters have revealed should be slam dunk cases for the FTC under the “unfair and deceptive” component of the FTC Act, creating what will likely be a very busy 2024 for Elon Musk.

A lot of this stuff has been discussed by Tesla critics for years. It’s only once Musk began his downward descent into full racist caricature and undeniable self-immolation that press outlets with actual resources started to meaningfully dig beyond the hype. There’s cause for some significant U.S. journalism introspection as to why that is that probably will never happen.

Meanwhile, for a supposed innovation super-genius, most Musk companies have the kind of customer service that makes Comcast seem empathic and competent.

There’s no shortage of nightmare stories about Tesla Solar customer service. And we’ve well documented how Starlink can’t even respond to basic email inquiries by users tired of being on year-long waiting lists and seeking refunds. And once you burn past the novelty, gimmicks, and fanboy denialism, Tesla automotive clearly isn’t any better.

That said, this goes well beyond just bad customer service. The original Reuters story from July about the company lying about EV ranges clearly demonstrates not just bad customer service, but profound corporate culture rot:

“Inside the Nevada team’s office, some employees celebrated canceling service appointments by putting their phones on mute and striking a metal xylophone, triggering applause from coworkers who sometimes stood on desks. The team often closed hundreds of cases a week and staffers were tracked on their average number of diverted appointments per day.”

As with much of what Musk does, a large share of what the press initially sold the public as unbridled innovation was really just cutting corners. It’s easy to accomplish more than the next guy when you refuse to invest in customer service, don’t care about labor or environmental laws, don’t care about public safety, don’t care about the customer, and have zero compulsion about lying to regulators or making things up at every conceivable opportunity.

Filed Under: automotive, cars, consumer rights, ev, mechanics, repairs, safety, tesla
Companies: tesla

Senator Markey Sends Automakers A Letter Criticizing Their Nonexistent Privacy Standards

from the what-if-we-passed-a-privacy-law dept

Thu, Dec 7th 2023 05:30am - Karl Bode

Back in September Mozilla released a scathing report showing how modern vehicles are a privacy shitshow. After studying vehicle systems for over 600 hours, researchers found that most cars hoover up vast swaths of sensitive location and other information on consumers, then, like most companies, sell access to that data to pretty much any nitwit with a nickel.

The problem is particularly severe if you routinely attach your phone to your vehicle via Bluetooth, something that required an entirely different report showcasing how automakers also recklessly collect data from your mobile device and monetize it. Often without getting permission. And often with zero transparency as to security and encryption standards.

Mozilla’s report got the attention of Senator Ed Markey, who this week penned a letter to the auto industry asking for more details:

“These practices are unacceptable. Although certain data collection and sharing practices may have real benefits, consumers should not be subject to a massive data collection apparatus, with any disclosures hidden in pages-long privacy policies filled with legalese. Cars should not—and cannot—become yet another venue where privacy takes a backseat.”

The data collected stems from location data (down to the meter), to even biometric data collected on drivers (pulse rate, breathing patterns). As with everything else you now do online, that data is then “anonymized” (a useless term) and sold to a rotating crop of barely regulated data brokers, who in turn merge this data with other datasets to build vast profiles on every consumer alive.

The potential for abuse is obvious in the post-Roe authoritarian dipshit era, yet Congress still hasn’t managed to pass even a baseline privacy law or regulate data brokers. In part because of lobbyist-induced apathy, but also because the U.S. government has grown fat and comfortable buying this kind of data to bypass warrants.

Whether Congress will do more than chirp after Markey receives the data he’s looking for (he gave automakers until December 21 to answer numerous questions about their data collection practices) is unclear, but if history’s any indication this probably ends with zero substantive reform whatsoever.

It’s not clear what kind of scandal will be required for Congress to shake off its legislative, lobbyist-induced apathy (aka corruption) on privacy, but it’s clearly going to require the kind of massive scandal that makes the ugly problems we’ve seen so far look like child’s play by comparison.

Filed Under: automakers, carmakers, cars, consumer rights, ed markey, mozilla, privacy, security

Carmakers Push Forward With Plans To Make Basic Features Subscription Services, Despite Widespread Backlash

from the breathing-clean-air-will-now-cost-extra dept

Tue, Dec 5th 2023 05:26am - Karl Bode

Automakers are increasingly obsessed with turning everything into a subscription service in a bid to boost quarterly returns. We’ve noted how BMW has embraced making heated seats and other features already in your car a subscription service, and Mercedes has been making better gas and EV engine performance something you have to pay extra for — even if your existing engine already technically supports it.

And despite widespread backlash (BMW had to backtrack on many of its plans), the auto industry shows absolutely no indication they’re going to back away from their plan, with numerous automakers currently working on efforts to “subscriptionize” basic functions and features. And now they’re apparently trying to pretend that this shift is necessary to finance the shift to EVs:

Alistair Weaver, editor-in-chief at Edmunds, says automakers are counting on the new revenue stream to pay for the expensive transition to electric cars.

“So if your car payment is 600 bucks a month, it’s now $675,” Weaver said.

There are several problems here. One, most of the tech they want to charge a recurring fee to use is already embedded in the car you own. And its cost is already rolled into the retail cost you’ve paid. They’re effectively disabling technology you already own, then charging you a recurring additional monthly fee just to re-enable it. It’s a Cory Doctorow nightmare dressed up as innovation.

The other problem: nobody genuinely wants this shit. Surveys have already shown how consumers widely despise paying their car maker a subscription fee for pretty much anything, whether that’s an in-car 5G hotspot or movie rentals via your car’s screen. Other studies indicate that consumers are generally opposed to making functions subscription based, unless they wind up paying less overall:

Alix Partners, a global consulting firm, found that more than 60% of consumers are willing to consider subscribing for enhanced safety and convenience features as long they don’t feel like they are being charged for something they already paid for.

“A lot of people in the auto industry certainly use Apple as a shining light on the hill,” said Mark Wakefield, Alix Partners CEO.

“The car has to be cheaper, plus this option of subscribing,” Wakefield added.

But there’s zero chance that consumers will ever pay less. I’ve often seen carmakers like BMW try to pretend that turning heated seats and other features into recurring subscriptions lowers the vehicle retail cost, but I’ve not seen any evidence to indicate that’s actually true.

The entire point of integrating subscription systems like these is to please Wall Street’s insatiable, often myopic desire for consistent, upwardly scaling, improved quarterly returns. Once implemented, the subscription costs will inevitably be jacked steadily skyward to please Wall Street. It’s simply how these things work. The end result is higher overall costs, and annoying new subscription systems to manage.

There’s a whole bunch of additional unintentional consequences of this kind of shift. Right to repair folks will be keen on breaking down these phony barriers, and automakers (already busy fighting tooth and nail against right to repair reform) will increasingly respond by doing things like making enabling tech you already own and paid for a warranty violation.

The shift toward endless subscriptions for basic functions may not annoy folks with endless piles of disposable income, but for the majority of Americans that struggle to even afford new vehicle costs already, it’s hard to not see this impacting new car sales — or driving more users to older, used cars with dumber tech.

Filed Under: automobiles, cars, consumer rights, fees, heated seats, right to repair, subscription service