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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
