Weighing the Cost/Benefit of Handing Over the Keys to Personal In-Car Data
Until Congress and/or the courts create a framework for handling in-car data, the use of such information in legal proceedings raises important questions. What opportunities does this new wealth of information create for litigators? And how do we protect drivers' privacy?
July 24, 2015 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
As they transmit and store increasingly more electronic information, cars today give new meaning to the term “mobile device.” Like computers and mobile phones, the information our vehicles contain, from performance data to location, is also being sought more and more in legal proceedings. Not surprisingly, the law lags behind the ever-changing technological landscape. Until Congress and/or the courts create a framework for handling in-car data, the use of such information in legal proceedings raises important questions. What opportunities does this new wealth of information create for litigators? And how do we protect drivers' privacy?
Vehicle telematics systems, such as Ford's Sync and General Motors' OnStar, have many functions, including GPS tracking, risk assessment (monitoring of speed, braking, seatbelt usage, etc. by insurance companies), advanced safety features, and interfacing with any number of entertainment apps. This data is related to but distinct from the type of information found in a vehicle's “black box.” Black boxes record a variety of vehicle performance information, from speed to steering angle to brake usage, and have often been used in accident investigations and litigation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has mandated that, as of Sept. 1, 2014, all new vehicles contain a black box (as a practical matter, most cars have contained some form of a black box for several years). With advances in technology, auto manufacturers are designing increasingly powerful black boxes that contain ever more data points. Our vehicles have become rolling “Wi-Fi hotspots” of opportunity for litigators.
Personal injury and product liability litigators, as well as family and criminal law practitioners, should be prepared to either request or attempt to block requests for in-car data. In some cases, such information may be the only way to corroborate (or contradict) witness testimony. It may also lead to information that might not otherwise be discoverable. In cases where speed, location, seatbelt usage, or the behavior of certain vehicle systems are at issue, in-car data may be the best source of information. Additionally, with many new vehicles now equipped with Internet access, litigants are likely to turn to in-car data to determine whether a driver in an accident was downloading music or surfing the web or typing an address into the navigation system at the time of the accident. In-car data is like cell phone data, just in a more cumbersome device.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat Is Exhibit J? Litigators Are Watching This AI Test Case
Replacing Attorney Review? Sidley's Experimental Assessment of GPT-4's Performance in Document Review
9 minute readSullivan & Cromwell's Investments in AI Lead to Discovery, Deposition 'Assistants'
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250