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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
