You’re just renting it, paying a subscription fee for everything you enjoy.

By Malcolm Lee Kitchen III | Margin Of The Law

BMW CHARGED YOU TO USE YOUR OWN SEAT. GM SOLD YOUR DATA. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PUTTING CAMERAS IN YOUR NEXT CAR.

None of this is speculation. The records are public. The investigations are published. The legislation is signed. Here is what happened and what it means for anyone who owns or buys a car.

BMW AND THE HARDWARE YOU ALREADY PAID FOR

In 2022, BMW rolled out a subscription model across multiple markets, including South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The product being sold was access to heated rear seats.

The hardware was not missing from the vehicle. The coil, the wiring, and the seat element were physically installed at the factory and present in the car at the time of purchase. BMW was not offering a new component or a remote upgrade. The company was charging approximately $18 per month to send a software signal that activated something already sitting inside the car you bought. Annual and lifetime purchase options were also available for drivers who preferred a lump sum over monthly billing.

The business logic is straightforward from a manufacturer’s perspective. If the same hardware configuration ships in every unit regardless of trim level, the revenue model shifts from selling components to selling access. You pay for the car. Then you pay again to use the parts inside it.

Public response was direct and negative. The model drew sustained criticism across automotive media and consumer forums. BMW discontinued the heated seat subscription in September 2023. The company did not eliminate the underlying architecture. The platform that allows hardware to be locked and unlocked remotely remains in place. The heated seat was the example that became public. It was not necessarily the only application.

The documentation on this is straightforward. The original reporting from The Verge and other outlets is indexed and searchable. Search “BMW heated seat subscription 2022” at theverge.com. The coverage is not opinion. It describes a product BMW offered, priced, and sold.

GM ONSTAR AND THE DATA YOU DIDN’T KNOW WAS MOVING

In March 2024, the New York Times published an investigation into General Motors and its OnStar Smart Driver program. The investigation identified a practice that had been running without prominent disclosure to customers.

GM was sharing detailed driving behavior data with two insurance data brokers: LexisNexis and Verisk. The data transferred included braking patterns, acceleration behavior, route history, and driving performance scoring. These are not abstract data categories. They are specific behavioral records generated every time you drive, tied to your vehicle, and sold to companies whose business is assessing risk.

Insurance companies received this data and used it. Some raised premiums. Some denied coverage. The customers whose data was transferred were enrolled in the Smart Driver program, but the investigation found that the disclosure of data sharing with insurance brokers was not clear. The opt-in process did not plainly communicate what the data would be used for or who would receive it.

GM ended the data sharing program after the investigation published. The program stopped. The question of how the data already transferred continues to affect insurance records for affected drivers remains open.

The investigation is publicly available. Search “Automakers Are Sharing Consumers Driving Behavior With Insurance Companies” at nytimes.com. It was published on March 11, 2024. The sourcing is documented and the reporting is specific.

MASSACHUSETTS VOTED. THEN THE AUTOMAKERS SUED.

In November 2020, Massachusetts voters approved Ballot Question 1. The margin was approximately 75 percent in favor. The law required automakers to share vehicle telematics data with independent repair shops. The intent was straightforward: if you own a car, you should be able to have it repaired by someone other than a manufacturer-affiliated dealership without losing access to the diagnostic data the repair requires.

Modern vehicles generate telematics data continuously. That data is used for diagnostics, performance monitoring, and service alerts. Without access to that data stream, independent repair shops are at a structural disadvantage. They can work on older vehicles, but newer vehicles with connected systems become increasingly difficult to service without manufacturer data access. The Massachusetts law was designed to address that gap.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation filed a federal lawsuit to block the law within weeks of the vote. The Alliance represents Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, and other major manufacturers. The law was never enforced during four years of litigation. It passed with a 75 percent vote and was held out of effect for four years by a court challenge.

In February 2025, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dismissed the Alliance’s challenge. The case was not resolved on the merits of whether you should be able to fix your own car. It was resolved on legal grounds specific to the claims the Alliance brought. The Alliance filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2025. The legal process continues.

The ballot results are on record at sec.state.ma.us. The February 2025 dismissal is documented. Search “right to repair Massachusetts federal judge February 2025” at bostonglobe.com for the coverage.

SECTION 24220 AND THE CAMERAS COMING IN YOUR NEXT CAR

Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was signed into law on November 15, 2021. It is Public Law 117-58. The law directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a federal safety standard requiring passive advanced impaired driving prevention technology in all new passenger vehicles sold in the United States. The statutory enforcement deadline is September 2027.

NHTSA documentation confirms the technology category. The systems under consideration include infrared cameras that monitor eye movement, pupil dilation, head position, and drowsiness indicators in real time. The monitoring is passive. It runs without the driver initiating it. The data it generates, what it captures, where it goes, how long it is stored, and who can access it, are questions NHTSA is in the rulemaking process to address. Final rules have not been published as of early 2025.

The mandate applies to new vehicles only. No vehicle currently on the road is subject to retrofitting. If you own a car built before this standard takes effect, the mandate does not apply to your vehicle. If you buy a new car after the standard is enforced, the technology will be present by federal requirement.

The impaired driving problem the law responds to is real. Alcohol and drug-impaired driving kills thousands of people every year in the United States. The legislative intent is documented. The question of how the technology will function in practice, what data it will generate, and how that data will be handled, is unresolved in the public record.

The full statutory text is at congress.gov. Search “H.R.3684 117th Congress.” The specific provision is Section 24220. For NHTSA rulemaking documentation, search “NHTSA advanced impaired driving prevention technology rulemaking” at federalregister.gov. Hogan Lovells published a legal analysis you can find by searching “Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Includes New Safety Mandates for Auto Industry” at hoganlovells.com.

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS

BMW charged monthly fees to activate hardware already installed in cars that buyers had purchased outright.

GM transferred detailed driving behavior records to insurance data brokers through a program that did not clearly disclose what it was doing.

Massachusetts voters approved the right to have their own vehicles serviced outside manufacturer dealerships by a 75 percent margin. Automakers filed suit to block it. Four years passed before a court dismissed the challenge. The appeal is active.

Federal law requires driver monitoring cameras in all new passenger vehicles by September 2027. The rulemaking process for implementation is ongoing.

Every item in this document is verifiable through primary sources. The legislation, the investigations, and the court records are public. The sources are listed above with specific search instructions. None of this requires trust. It requires a search.