App Privacy Settings wrong

[bbulkow]

Apologies if this has been covered before

It appears remotely setting charge percentage through the app requires "share driving data" setting.

I happen to have been, in the past, professionally involved with data privacy, both at Facebook and as a technology vendor to adtech companies.

It is hard to claim that setting the battery charge state in my driveway would require my driving data. I would find it extremely hard to believe that an FTC or CA auditor would be convinced that driving data (stated in the app as speed, braking, acceleration, etc) is necessary to enable the app to change the car's charge percentage, in my driveway, from 85% to 90%.

Yet, it seems precisely true. The slider in the app didn't show up, then I toggled that one setting, then the toggle showed up and I could set charge percent.

I propose this isn't legal.

If Ford has every claimed that driving data is required for setting charge, that would likely be deception, which the FTC takes a dim view of.

If Ford claimed "it's currently required but shouldn't be and we're fixing it", my experience with the FTC is they rather reasonably give a timeline, then hold the company accountable.

If Ford has claimed nothing, I believe tying an unrelated feature is called "unfairness" - a coercive architecture. Section 5 violation, under federal law.

CPRA (California Privacy Rights Act), apparently the term is "discrimination". You can't deny an unrelated feature based on withdrawing consent. Also illegal.

Let me say I've generally been happy with Ford's approach to privacy! They didn't get caught selling data like GM did, and their privacy settings are nicely granular and easy to understand. Good job, Ford!

Except for this

Is anyone aware of Ford's claims that driving data is required to set charge state? Is there history on this feature tying?

Sponsored

 

[RickMachE]

I haven't ever seen Ford claiming anything. They don't need to - if you want to use the feature, it shares data. If you don't want to use it, then don't.

They didn't withdraw anything, they require data exchange to provide features.

This has been discussed many times in the past.

 

[NY_Cade69]

It is the use of the app that requires the shared data, you don't wnat to share, make the change in the car..

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Great—call a lawyer.

Just know that $100K is basically the cover charge. It likely won’t even get you to trial in a routine case. Ford, on the other hand, has seasoned legal teams in every state (and probably a few territories for good measure). Their entire job is to make cases like this long, complicated, and—most importantly—expensive for the other side. And they’re very good at it.

If you somehow make it to trial, plan on another ~$150K to actually see it through, including appeals. At that point, sure—you might win. Odds aren’t exactly in your favor, but let’s say you do. Congratulations: you’ve just spent a quarter million dollars for the privilege of moving a charge slider without sharing data.

If that sounds like a solid return on investment, by all means, proceed.

If not, a little discretion—and maybe just turning the setting on or moving on—might be the more practical path.

But hey, it’s your time and your money.

 

[StangByME]

Don't let some of the snarky and whiny responses above discourage you from talking about the privacy issue, @bbulkow. Unlike you, I am not a privacy expert but it is still important to me. I've done some research in this space and I agree that it seems Ford is better at privacy than the others but still far from ideal. It doesn't matter if it has been talked about elsewhere. Ignore the legal defeatism and the "they all do it" arguments that are likely to come. Silence is acceptance.

 

[bbulkow]

I haven't ever seen Ford claiming anything. They don't need to - if you want to use the feature, it shares data. If you don't want to use it, then don't.

They didn't withdraw anything, they require data exchange to provide features.

This has been discussed many times in the past.

I think you might want to check california (and federal) before making such a statement.

Under California law, It is illegal to tie *unrelated* data use to the ability to use a product feature. Repeat: It is *NOT* legal to tie data exchange to a feature with little in common with the feature. This is *NOT* a matter of "well, don't buy the car".

Code: Failure of Data Minimization (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(c))

I believe any reasonable person would say *driving data* has little to do with enabling *charging*. Charging takes place while stationary, for one. Sharing *vehicle data* makes sense. Driving data is far more sensitive.

On a somewhat related matter (the ford app and privacy), Ford has recently been found guilty (along with other car makers) for illegal opt out processes. This happened in March 2026. https://privacy.ca.gov/2026/03/ford...ding-unnecessary-friction-to-opt-out-process/ . Ford will pay a small fine, but is also required to improve their opt-out process.

I believe what Ford is doing is *also* against Federal law, but on different grounds. I don't have any belief the Federal government would move on something like this.

I suggest anyone else who believes they should be able to use Remote Charging without sharing Driving Data, and is a california resident, should visit the California Privacy Protection Agency, and file a complaint. I

t's a web form that will take you a few minutes. But it was complaints like this that is getting ford to fix out their illegal opt out.

 

[bbulkow]

Don't let some of the snarky and whiny responses above discourage you from talking about the privacy issue, @bbulkow. Unlike you, I am not a privacy expert but it is still important to me. I've done some research in this space and I agree that it seems Ford is better at privacy than the others but still far from ideal. It doesn't matter if it has been talked about elsewhere. Ignore the legal defeatism and the "they all do it" arguments that are likely to come. Silence is acceptance.

I'd like pointers to where this exact issue was discussed. I'm having trouble finding it.

I'd especially like to see if Ford corporate has defended "share driving data is required for connected operation".

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

suggest anyone else who believes they should be able to use Remote Charging without sharing Driving Data

If you're that outraged and convinced of the holiness of your beliefs, then file a complaint with the California State Attorney General’s Office. You can do so online. Otherwise, your proselytizing is meaningless. Or cough up the 6 figure retainer an attorney will need to get started in a lawsuit.

Sponsored