4 ms·
Just to be clear, these fines are for failure to execute prior recalls in a timely manner, not for the recent Jeep hacking recall, correct?
by DanFeldman 11y ago
Just to be clear, these fines are for failure to execute prior recalls in a timely manner, not for the recent Jeep hacking recall, correct?
- MBCook 11y agoYes. It will be interesting to see what if anything comes from the security/hacking issues (or if there is even a law thy can use) but I'm sure that will take a fair bit of time.
- DanFeldman 11y agoWhile there are laws being made[1] to make unwanted car hacking illegal (or explicitly illegal), I don't think there is anything specific in place to peg liability automotive companies beyond the usual safety negligence charges. [1] http://www.newsweek.com/your-car-can-be-hacked-and-two-senators-want-stop-it-355987 http://www.newsweek.com/your-car-can-be-hacked-and-two-senat...
- maxerickson 11y agoNHTSA would first have to rule that it is a safety defect, as discussed here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Recalls+&+Defects/Motor+Vehicle+Safety+Defects+and+Recalls+Campaigns?renderPage=1 http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Recalls+&+Defects/Motor+... (Note that I've linked page 2 of 6, the discussion of what they consider a safety defect is there and not highly dependent on the previous page) I guess Fiat Chrysler would fight such a ruling in court. They aren't going to be fined for executing a voluntary recall.
- biot 11y agoFrom behind the paywall: "The government penalties come days after regulators separately started probing Fiat Chrysler’s handling of recalled vehicles with possible cybersecurity flaws, after hackers commandeered controls of a moving Jeep. Those vehicles aren’t included in the settlement expected to be disclosed in the coming week."