WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 367

Consumer Protection - As introduced, prohibits certain entities from sharing, selling, or otherwise distributing a vehicle's driving data without the explicit, written consent of the owner of the vehicle, regardless of how or where the driving data is collected or stored. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 47 and Title 55.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Michael Hale

HB 367 mandates explicit written consent before entities can share, sell, or distribute vehicle driving data in Tennessee, strengthening consumer data privacy protections in automotive sector.

Withdrawn.
#consumerprotection
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 367

Legislative bill overview

HB 367 would require explicit, written consent from vehicle owners before any entity can share, sell, or distribute driving data collected from their vehicles. The bill applies broadly across multiple Tennessee code sections covering commerce, consumer protection, and vehicle-related regulations, regardless of how or where the driving data originates or is stored.

Why is this important

Connected vehicles increasingly collect detailed driving data—including location, speed, acceleration patterns, and braking habits—that companies use for insurance pricing, marketing, or resale. This bill addresses growing consumer concerns about data privacy by establishing an opt-in requirement rather than allowing default data sharing, which reflects broader national debates over automotive data ownership and digital privacy rights.

Potential points of contention

  • Industry compliance costs: Auto manufacturers and insurance companies may argue that mandatory written consent creates administrative burdens and could limit beneficial uses of data (like vehicle safety improvements or accident reconstruction)
  • Definition ambiguity: The bill doesn't clearly define "driving data" scope, potentially catching benign technical data and creating uncertainty about what requires consent
  • Retroactive application: Unclear whether vehicles already collecting data under existing terms-of-service agreements would require new consent, potentially creating implementation complications
  • Interstate complications: Vehicle data collection often involves out-of-state entities, raising questions about enforcement jurisdiction and whether this creates competitive disadvantages for Tennessee-based companies

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.