California’s anti-stalking law had automakers warning of a sales freeze

SB 1394 put car access in focus

Imagine learning that someone else can follow your car through an app, even after you asked for access to end. SB 1394, officially titled “Access to connected vehicle service,” was designed to give drivers a faster way to cut off that access.

The 2024 law focused on connected vehicle services, especially remote access and vehicle location tracking that could be misused by someone outside the car. It also sparked a deadline fight among survivor advocates, state lawmakers, and major automakers over how quickly vehicle systems could be updated across the state.

SB 1394 sparked a deadline showdown

Senate Bill 1394 required automakers to establish a clear process for cutting off another person’s access to a connected vehicle. Qualified requesters could use documents showing legal possession, and manufacturers generally had two business days to act after receiving a completed request.

Another part of SB 1394 required automakers to give drivers a way to disable connected vehicle location access from inside certain vehicles. Automakers said that the requirement involved complex engineering, testing, and integration across many brands, models, model years, and electronic systems already on the road.

SB 1394 brought a sales warning

As July 1, 2026, approached, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation issued a warning tied to Senate Bill 1394. The trade group said new and used vehicle sales in California faced a substantial risk of suspension unless lawmakers approved a revised compliance schedule.

The Alliance represents General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai, and many other manufacturers. California matters because it accounts for about 10% of U.S. auto sales, making even a threatened pause a national concern for dealers, workers, and buyers.

Why connected cars raised alarms

Modern vehicles do more than provide directions. Manufacturer apps may show a car’s location, unlock doors, start climate controls, or send commands, depending on each brand.

Those tools are convenient when the right person controls them, but they can pose risks when an unauthorized user retains access to the account. California lawmakers acted after reports described survivors struggling to stop digital tracking through vehicles. SB 1394 treated connected access as a safety issue, not a customer service or password problem for drivers.

The online process came first

Automakers said they introduced online methods for people seeking to terminate another person’s access to a connected vehicle. The California law primarily focuses on reviewing documents, identifying the vehicle, and removing an unauthorized user from the service account.

The dispute was mainly about in-vehicle technology, not about helping survivors. Industry representatives argued that changing multiple systems across older vehicles could not be done quickly or uniformly. Advocates countered that urgent safety protections should not depend on long product cycles.

One button was not truly simple

Turning off vehicle tracking may sound like adding one switch. Inside a connected car, however, location data can support navigation, emergency response, theft recovery, roadside help, smartphone services, and other features.

Automakers argued that engineers must carefully separate functions so that a safety control does not turn off unrelated systems. They also said changes require testing across different hardware and software setups. Critics questioned whether those challenges justified delaying a protection lawmakers had approved two years before the deadline.

SB 719 changed the timeline

California lawmakers responded with Senate Bill 719, another measure officially titled “Access to connected vehicle service.” It revised parts of SB 1394 and moved several in-vehicle requirements to later model years, rather than forcing broad changes by July 1, 2026.

The Legislature passed SB 719 on June 29, and Governor Gavin Newsom approved it that same busy day. The measure became Chapter 53 of California’s 2026 statutes. That action removed the near-term legal conflict automakers said could disrupt vehicle sales across California.

Little-known fact: Once a California bill is chaptered, it receives a chapter number and becomes part of that year’s statutes.

The feared freeze never arrived

Because SB 719 became law before the deadline, California dealerships did not face the sales suspension predicted by the industry group. Drivers could continue buying and selling vehicles after July 1 without the shutdown suggested in earlier warnings.

That outcome matters when reading the headlines. The sales freeze was a possible consequence raised during negotiations, not an event that occurred. The episode still showed how a technical compliance dispute can turn into a fight over safety, privacy, jobs, dealerships, and choice.

Survivor requests stayed protected

SB 719 did not erase the process for requesting that another person lose access to connected vehicle services. The law requires manufacturers to review completed requests and terminate access within two business days when legal conditions are met.

It also limits the information a removed user can receive about the requester, vehicle, or a new account created afterward. Those rules matter because alerting the removed person could expose someone seeking safety. The law, therefore, combines account control with information protection.

New vehicles get clearer signals

Under the law, vehicles beginning with the 2031 model year must clearly indicate when connected vehicle location access is enabled. That requirement gives a person inside the vehicle a visible way to know whether location sharing is active.

The model-year approach reflects how automakers plan and certify systems years before cars reach showrooms. Supporters viewed that schedule as more practical for design changes. Critics worried that people driving older vehicles could wait longer for equally direct, built-in controls and warnings.

California can shape every showroom

California often influences vehicle design beyond its borders because manufacturers prefer common systems rather than separate versions for one state. A requirement affecting the nation’s largest auto market can guide features offered elsewhere.

That does not guarantee each California rule becomes a standard. Companies may use different software, equipment, or sales plans when regulations vary. Still, the SB 1394 fight showed why state legislation gets national attention. Sacramento decisions may affect engineering schedules, dealership operations, and connected-car services across America.

Driver data trust shaped the debate

The argument unfolded over concerns about how automakers collect and share driving data. Connected vehicles can generate location, speed, braking, and other data, creating services but also raising questions about consent and control.

Those concerns made advocates skeptical when manufacturers requested more time. Automakers said the debate involved a technical mandate rather than opposition to privacy or safety for survivors. The disagreement revealed a challenge: consumers expect smart-car features to be convenient, secure, understandable, and easy to shut off when necessary.

For another California auto policy update tied to privacy, clean-air rules, and federal pushback, see why the EPA fight is heading to court.

What California drivers should know

California drivers with connected cars should learn who can access the manufacturer’s app and review its permissions. Password changes, two-factor authentication, and removing old users can help, but a serious access problem may require the automaker’s request process.

SB 1394 and SB 719 set duties for covered providers, yet each brand may present its help page differently. Keep vehicle identification and possession documents available when seeking account changes. Anyone facing danger should contact emergency services or a trusted support organization.

For another California driver update tied to road funding, EVs, and future fees, see why a mileage-based tax could enter the debate.

Should driver safety protections come first, even if automakers warn they could disrupt sales? Share your thoughts and drop a comment.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• California’s pollution credit system is under scrutiny after a major lawsuit
• A California DMV review could turn test anomalies into a major driver headache
• California drivers are being told their licenses could be canceled unless they take action