It's arguably a violation of the CFAA.
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.