Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 10, 2026
Bottom line
The Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act creates a federal framework to protect survivors of abuse from technology-enabled harassment and control via connected vehicle services, imposing new obligations on vehicle manufacturers.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal process for survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and sex trafficking to request the termination or disabling of connected vehicle services that are being misused by an abuser. It mandates that motor vehicle manufacturers, or 'covered providers,' respond to such requests within two business days, restrict abuser access to vehicle data, and provide clear information and secure communication channels to survivors. The bill also grants liability protection to providers acting in compliance and preempts conflicting state laws.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step to address the growing threat of technology-facilitated abuse, empowering survivors to regain safety and privacy by preventing abusers from using vehicle tracking, remote control, or data access. They contend it provides a necessary, uniform federal standard for an evolving problem, ensuring timely and secure intervention without imposing financial burdens on vulnerable individuals.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to the bill's core intent is not widely publicized, potential concerns could include the operational burden on connected vehicle service providers to implement complex systems within tight deadlines, the potential for misuse of the request process if verification is insufficient, or concerns from states' rights advocates regarding the federal preemption of state laws.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly written, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Key Definitions
This section defines crucial terms for the Act, including 'abuser,' 'connected vehicle service' (any remote data or command capability), 'covered act' (referencing various forms of violence and trafficking, notably stating a criminal conviction is not required), 'covered provider' (motor vehicle manufacturers or affiliates), and 'survivor.' These definitions clarify who is protected, what actions are covered, and which entities are subject to the bill's requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these comprehensive definitions are essential for the bill's effectiveness, ensuring it addresses the full scope of technology-facilitated abuse and provides clear guidance to both survivors and providers. The inclusion of 'conviction not required' is seen as vital to empower survivors who may not have pursued or obtained legal convictions.
Critics contend
Some might express concern that defining 'covered act' without requiring a criminal conviction could lead to situations where providers must act on unverified allegations, potentially creating disputes or placing an undue burden on manufacturers to adjudicate claims.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the critical need to protect survivors from immediate harm, even without a formal conviction, against the potential for providers to act on unproven claims, which is mitigated by the proof of ownership/possession requirements in Section 4.
Section 3(a)
Mandated Provider Actions for Survivor Protection
This provision requires covered providers to take specific actions within two business days of receiving a valid connected vehicle service request from a survivor. These actions include terminating or disabling an abuser's access to a connected vehicle service account, terminating the service for the entire vehicle, or providing instructions on how to use an in-vehicle interface to disable services. This aims to swiftly remove an abuser's ability to misuse vehicle technology.
Section 3(c)
Prohibition on Fees and Conditions
This section prohibits covered providers from making any action taken to protect a survivor (such as terminating an abuser's access) contingent on additional requirements. Specifically, they cannot charge fees, penalties, require maintaining or extending a service contract, demand approval from the account holder (if not the survivor), or increase the service rate. This ensures survivors can seek protection without financial or contractual barriers.
Section 3(d)
Survivor-Centric Notification Protocols
This provision mandates that if a covered provider intends to notify an abuser about actions taken under the Act, they must first notify the survivor at least three days in advance, and only after the abuser's access has been terminated. Furthermore, survivors are given the option to elect their preferred method of contact for all communications related to their request, ensuring secure and safe communication.
Section 4(a)
Survivor Request Documentation Requirements
This section specifies the information a survivor must provide when making a connected vehicle service request. This includes the vehicle identification number (VIN), the abuser's name, and proof of either sole ownership of the vehicle or exclusive legal possession. For non-sole owners, proof of exclusive legal possession could be a court order, dissolution decree, temporary order, or domestic violence restraining order granting possession to the survivor or restricting the abuser's use of connected vehicle services.
Section 4(b)
Confidentiality and Data Minimization for Survivor Information
This section mandates strict confidentiality for all information submitted by a survivor. Covered providers must securely dispose of this information within 90 days of receipt and are prohibited from sharing it with any third party without the survivor's affirmative consent, unless necessary to fulfill the request. Providers are also explicitly forbidden from requiring any information beyond what is specified in Section 4(a). A rule of construction allows providers to maintain a minimal record to verify that a survivor fulfilled the conditions of a request.
Section 6
Provider Liability Protection
This section grants liability protection to covered providers and their officers, directors, employees, vendors, or agents for any claims arising from actions taken or omissions made in compliance with this Act. This aims to shield providers from potential lawsuits, particularly from abusers whose access to services has been terminated.
Section 8
Federal Preemption of State Laws
This section states that no state or political subdivision of a state may adopt, maintain, enforce, or continue in effect any law, regulation, rule, standard, or requirement that is covered by or related to the provisions of this Act or its promulgated rules. This establishes a uniform federal standard for connected vehicle services in the context of abuse prevention.
Section 9
FCC Rulemaking Authority
This section directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in consultation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to initiate a rulemaking proceeding within 180 days of enactment and conclude it within two years. The purpose is to prescribe detailed regulations on how covered providers address connected vehicle service requests and covered acts. This includes developing rules for reporting, notification, confidentiality, data removal, and informing account holders about safety and privacy options.
The definition of 'covered act' explicitly states that a criminal conviction or any other court determination is not required for conduct to constitute a covered act.
Section 2(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for clarifying definitions, but its significance for survivors and providers might be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main operative sections.
Case for: Supporters argue this is vital for survivor empowerment, as many survivors do not report abuse or obtain convictions, and requiring one would create an insurmountable barrier to protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that acting on unproven allegations places an undue burden on providers and could lead to disputes, though the bill's requirements for proof of ownership/possession mitigate this.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the accessibility of the bill's protections to a larger number of survivors who have not, or cannot, obtain criminal convictions against their abusers.
The Act's requirements do not prohibit or prevent a covered provider from terminating or disabling an abuser's access to connected vehicle services in 'emergency situations' after receiving a connected vehicle service request.
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative carve-out to ensure that the primary rules do not inadvertently hinder urgent action in critical situations.
Case for: Supporters argue this is a crucial safety valve, allowing providers to act with maximum urgency when a survivor's life or safety is in imminent danger, reinforcing the bill's core purpose.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions allowing for emergency action in cases of imminent harm.
Estimated impact: Ensures flexibility for immediate intervention in high-risk scenarios, potentially saving lives or preventing serious harm.
In the event an abuser still has access to a survivor's email account, the covered provider must offer an option to 'opt-out' of receiving notices regarding the connected vehicle service request process and provide alternative options for the survivor to maintain a record of the request process.
Section 5(4)
Why it matters:This is a nuanced but critical detail addressing a specific vulnerability for survivors, often placed within broader communication guidelines.
Case for: Supporters highlight this as a vital safeguard, recognizing that abusers often monitor survivor communications. The opt-out and alternative record-keeping options prevent abusers from intercepting critical information and potentially escalating abuse.
Case against: Providers might find implementing secure and consistent 'alternative options' for record-keeping challenging, requiring robust systems beyond standard email communication.
Estimated impact: Significantly enhances the security and safety of the communication process for survivors, reducing a common vector for continued abuse.