And a ruling that it doesn't matter because "nobody reads that" wouldn't be a good thing either -- basically that would make most SaaS engineer into criminals.
Safer roads and more convenient travel comport with public policy; and,
No one in 2025 has a reasonable expectation they are not being surveilled by their new car.
(FWIW, I’m against surveillance transport but there is no reasonable way to say these contracts of adhesion are unconscionable under US law).
This is not even slightly true. People are barely aware of the fact their car has any connectivity in the first place, let alone that it tracks everything you do in a way that's tied to your real life identity.
You're probably, talking mostly to us "techies". Anyone else probably wouldn't be too surprised if you told them, but they definitely wouldn't expect it to be like that.
Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that makes sense (or that ut doesn’t).
I guess you’re saying “they do have that expectation” while I’m saying “regardless of anyone’s expectation, car manufacturers have all addressed the market in a way that makes the expectation false and therefore unreasonable.”
The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.
We’re talking about it because you brought it up, but it generally does not apply to data privacy in the US.
Courts recognize that peeping toms can’t look into your window, but ad tech absolutely can track data about you, in your car, or even your home.
This thing about judges... if you brought a complaint to court that doesn't show any harm, you'll get the opposite result that you want: judges will expand the legality of clickthroughs. This is what happens, without a doubt.
Privacy advocates have numerous strategic failures. One is failure to show meaningful harm of specifically the data gathering permissions in these clickthroughs, in any legal venue, anywhere. The harms have always been of other issues, like a data breach, and even then, the harms amount to ones of dollars per person, in places where judges have approved data breach settlements. Another failure is of leadership/education: they cannot communicate the very simple idea to the public that there is privacy in the sense of limiting government overreaching versus privacy in the sense of limiting dissemination of embarrassing personal information. There are so many steps in this privacy mission before the judges.
The correct place ELA / T&A consent should be defined is in something like the GDPR -- along with strict requirements as to what standard of consumer free choice is required for it to be enforceable.
1. The terms and conditions of a product, service, etc. "primarily" aimed at a consumer have simple, human readable terms. Like a food label or similar to the broadband label.
2. The terms are presented and acknowledged PRIOR to purchasing (not after opening the package, driving off the lot, putting the DVD into the player). The company needs to find a way to deliver the T&C's before purchase. If you need me to agree to 50 pages things before I can use your product, I didn't really purchase it, I am receiving a license to use it....
3. If these terms and conditions will be changed retroactively (for existing customers) that must be optional, opt-in and not required to continue to use the product.
I think this would stop a lot of the shenanigans companies pull on end users, that they DON'T pull in B2B environments.
And, before you dismiss this idea with "Ha ha imagine if every cell phone provider had a custom, bespoke, negotiated contract with each customer! It can't be done!"
If providing real negotiating power and choice to your customer is too much of an overhead burden, then maybe the company should not be allowed to make the "agreement" a condition for buying/using the product.
This actually already happens to some extend. Nor a different contract for every individual user but my mobile phone plan is not one you can currently purchase from the provider but just available to existing customers who have been upgraded (more data for the same price as the original contract).
What we actually need is a Consumer Protection Alliance that is made by and funded by people who want protection from this and are willing to pay for the lawyers needed to run all of the cases and bring these cases before a judge over and over and over again until they win.
This would mean people like you and me and a million others of us paying $20-$50/month out of pocket to hire people to sue companies that do this shit.