Amidst a major auto industry shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and software-driven mobility, a new survey shows that almost all drivers want to have ownership over their own vehicle data—though consumer awareness on data privacy and ownership are still lacking.
As part of a survey of over 1,300 adults who lease or own vehicles that they drive at least once a week, car insurance app Jerry reported last month that 96 percent of respondents said they should be able to own any data generated by their vehicles. Similarly, 78 percent of those surveyed reported that they were either uncomfortable or extremely uncomfortable with having their data collected by automakers already.
You can see a few insights from the survey below, or check out the full report here.
Credit: Jerry Credit: Jerry Credit: Jerry
“People were nearly unanimous” in “thinking that they should own the data that is generated by their cars,” said Henry Hoenig, Jerry data journalist, in a statement to Automotive News.
The results come as many companies plan to use vehicle data as a consistent revenue stream, including manufacturers, insurance providers, and data brokers. On the consumer side, many may not be fully aware of how their vehicles are being connected to the internet, nor how their data is being used.
Data Collection in Modern Cars and Consumer Awareness
Teslarati spoke with Andy Chatham, co-founder of the connected vehicle platform Digital Infrastructure for Moving Objects (DIMO), about vehicle data ownership and privacy. He notes that modern cars include substantial amounts of data collection, such as Tesla’s 360-degree camera view around the cars as just one example. However, he also says that consumers are less likely to be aware of their vehicles’ data collection practices than they are with their cell phones.
“Generally, your vehicle is the most expensive or the second most expensive asset that you own, and traditionally people are very aware that their phones and their computers are connected to the internet,” Chatham said. “But especially with modern cars, it’s not always obvious that the car is also connected to the internet.”
Chatham says that most automakers aren’t generally following best practices surrounding cybersecurity, noting that many let third-party sub-contractors make those decisions for them, alongside other companies in the supply chain.
“Generally, [automakers are] not following best practices when it comes to how the vehicles are networked and how cybersecurity practices are implemented,” Chatham adds.
“I see a pretty big transition from the world of buying a phone and understanding that this is a device that has a lot of data collection going on, and buying a car and maybe acknowledging that once at the beginning, but never really understanding what that actually means.”
Chatham also says companies should open up their APIs for other developers to create applications using that data, and let vehicle owners access their own vehicle data and toggle permissions directly from their cars—not unlike what Tesla is currently doing.
However, even Tesla’s approach to vehicle data may leave a few things to be desired, and the company is one of many automakers to have faced legal action over the matter. Still, the DIMO co-founder estimates that Tesla is roughly three to five years ahead of the industry, perhaps except for Rivian.
Chatham also notes that as applications for car data improve more and more, and perhaps even offer certain data monetization options for consumers, owners will become more aware of vehicle connectedness. Still, the transition to this new public paradigm could be tricky for both consumers and developers.
“In order for that to even exist in the first place, there’s a chicken and egg problem, because developers don’t want to go cut separate deals with 10 different OEMs and get them to like agree to certain terms and use different APIs. They just won’t,” Chatham adds. “They just want to build to one thing, which is what they’re used to with both. It’s honestly a big enough pain in the ass to get developers to build an iOS and Android app and deal with two separate terms of service.”
“In the car world, Toyota is the biggest automaker and they’re, what, like 15 percent of cars? So it’s not the same dynamic, and then choice is the biggest thing that allows people to protect their own privacy because a lot of consumers don’t care.”
Automakers and the Use of Vehicle Data
Earlier this year, General Motors (GM) reported ceasing a partnership with one data broker, after discovering that the company had been selling customer data to insurance companies without gaining their consent. Public backlash ensued, and affected consumers said they witnessed inexplicable increases for their monthly insurance premiums, which were ultimately traced back to the telemetry program that had shared their data.
Ford and Progressive Insurance were involved in a similar case that brought data ownership and privacy to light in 2022. Last year, Mozilla said that all 25 car companies it examined as part of a study on privacy collected more personal data than necessary, even calling them “privacy nightmares.”
Unlike some companies, Tesla doesn’t sell or rent consumer data to third-party companies, though it does collect driver information on a fleet scale for its own purposes, as the company explains on its website.
“We’re committed to protecting you anytime you get behind the wheel of a Tesla vehicle. That commitment extends to your data privacy,” Tesla writes on its web page dedicated to the topic of privacy. “Our privacy protections aim to go beyond industry standards, ensuring your personal data is never sold, tracked or shared without your permission or knowledge.”
Tesla Insurance data has driven changes to vehicle design: Elon Musk
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
