Across America, survivors of domestic abuse and stalking are facing a unique location tracking crisis born out of policy failure, unclear corporate responsibility, and potentially risky behaviors around digital sharing that are now common in relationships.

No, we’re not talking about stalkerware. Or hidden Apple AirTags. We’re talking about cars.

Modern cars are the latest consumer “device” to undergo an internet-crazed overhaul, as manufacturers increasingly stuff their automobiles with the types of features you’d expect from a smartphone, not a mode of transportation.

There are cars with WiFi, cars with wireless charging, cars with cameras that not only help while you reverse out of a driveway, but which can detect whether you’re drowsy while on a long haul. Many cars now also come with connected apps that allow you to, through your smartphone, remotely start your vehicle, schedule maintenance, and check your tire pressure.

But one feature in particular, which has legitimate uses in responding to stolen and lost vehicles, is being abused: Location tracking.

It’s time car companies do something about it.  

In December, The New York Times revealed the story of a married woman whose husband was abusing the location tracking capabilities of her Mercedes-Benz sedan to harass her. The woman tried every avenue she could to distance herself from her husband. After her husband became physically violent in an argument, she filed a domestic abuse report. Once she fled their home, she got a restraining order. She ignored his calls and texts.

But still her husband could follow her whereabouts by tracking her car—a level of access that Mercedes representatives reportedly could not turn off, as he was considered the rightful owner of the vehicle (according to The New York Times, the husband’s higher credit score convinced the married couple to have the car purchased in his name alone).

As reporter Kashmir Hill wrote of the impasse:

“Even though she was making the payments, had a restraining order against her husband and had been granted sole use of the car during divorce proceedings, Mercedes representatives told her that her husband was the customer so he would be able to keep his access. There was no button she could press to take away the app’s connection to the vehicle.”

This was far from an isolated incident.

In 2023, Reuters reported that a San Francisco woman sued her husband in 2020 for allegations of “assault and sexual battery.” But some months later, the woman’s allegations of domestic abuse grew into allegations of negligence—this time, against the carmaker Tesla.

Tesla, the woman claimed in legal filings, failed to turn off her husband’s access to the location tracking capabilities in their shared Model X SUV, despite the fact that she had obtained a restraining order against her husband, and that she was a named co-owner of the vehicle.

When The New York Times retrieved filings from the San Francisco lawsuit above, attorneys for Tesla argued that the automaker could not realistically play a role in this matter:

“Virtually every major automobile manufacturer offers a mobile app with similar functions for their customers,” the lawyers wrote. “It is illogical and impractical to expect Tesla to monitor every vehicle owner’s mobile app for misuse.”

Tesla was eventually removed from the lawsuit.

In the Reuters story, reporters also spoke with a separate woman who made similar allegations that her ex-husband had tracked her location by using the Tesla app associated with her vehicle. Because the separate woman was a “primary” account owner, she was able to remove the car’s access to the internet, Reuters reported.

A better path

Location tracking—and the abuse that can come with it—is a much-discussed topic for Malwarebytes Labs. But the type of location tracking abuse that is happening with shared cars is different because of the value that cars hold in situations of domestic abuse.

A car is an opportunity to physically leave an abusive partner. A car is a chance to start anew in a different, undisclosed location. In harrowing moments, cars have also served as temporary shelter for those without housing.

So when a survivor’s car is tracked by their abuser, it isn’t just a matter of their location and privacy being invaded, it is a matter of a refuge being robbed.

In speaking with the news outlet CalMatters, Yenni Rivera, who works on domestic violence cases, explained the stressful circumstances of exactly this dynamic.

“I hear the story over and over from survivors about being located by their vehicle and having it taken,” Rivera told CalMatters. “It just puts you in a worst case situation because it really triggers you thinking, ‘Should I go back and give in?’ and many do. And that’s why many end up being murdered in their own home. The law should make it easier to leave safely and protected.”

Though the state of California is considering legislative solutions to this problem, national lawmaking is slow.

Instead, we believe that the companies that have the power to do something act on that power. Much like how Malwarebytes and other cybersecurity vendors banded together to launch the Coalition Against Stalkerware, automakers should work together to help users.

Fortunately, an option may already exist.

When the Alliance for Automobile Innovation warned that consumer data collection requests could be weaponized by abusers who want to comb through the car location data of their partners and exes, the automaker General Motors already had a protection built in.

According to Reuters, the roadside assistance service OnStar, which is owned by General Motors, allows any car driver—be they a vehicle’s owner or not—to hide location data from other people who use the same vehicle. Rivian, a new electric carmaker, is reportedly working on a similar feature, said senior vice president of software development Wassym Bensaid in speaking with Reuters.

Though Reuters reported that Rivian had not heard of their company’s technology being leveraged in a situation of domestic abuse, Wassym believed that “users should have a right to control where that information goes.”

We agree.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Every relationship has its disagreements. Who takes out the trash and washes the dishes? Who plans the meals and writes out the grocery list? And when is it okay to start tracking one another’s location?  

Location sharing is becoming the norm between romantic partners—50% of people valued location sharing in their relationships, according to recent research from Malwarebytes—and plenty of couples have found ways to track one another’s location, with consent, in a respectful and transparent way.

But, as a cybersecurity, privacy, and identity protection company, Malwarebytes is concerned with risk, and location sharing carries significant risks within many types of relationships.

There are new relationships in which the rules around privacy and sharing are still being agreed upon, old relationships in which power imbalances are deeply entrenched, and, of course, abusive relationships in which non-consensual tracking and surveillance are used as levers of control.

As a company—and not a relationship counselor—Malwarebytes cannot endorse any reasons for location sharing between romantic partners. But Malwarebytes can provide guidance on what safe location sharing looks like, including a requirement for consent.

Importantly, Malwarebytes can also remind readers about one simple, often-forgotten fact in this conversation: You don’t have to engage in location sharing if you do not want to.

It really is as simple as that. Do not agree to location sharing in your relationship if:

• You are being pressured, coerced, or harassed into sharing your location.
• You do not trust or feel comfortable sharing your location with your partner.  
• You do not want to.

As the reasons for location sharing are valid for many couples, the reasons against it are just as valid, too. You have the right to determine the rules in your own relationship, and that includes the digital decisions that impact your feelings of privacy, safety, and trust.

Safety, security, and convenience

According to research conducted last year by Malwarebytes, location tracking among partners is popular in North America—and even more popular amongst younger generations.

When polling more than 1,000 people about their attitudes and behaviors around online privacy and cybersecurity, a full 50% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “monitoring my spouse’s/significant other’s online activity and/or location makes me feel they are safer.”

Similarly, 42% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “being able to track my spouse’s/significant other’s location when they are away is extremely important to me.” This sentiment was higher amongst Gen Z—49% felt the same way compared to the general population.

As to why location tracking has become so popular, there is little doubt. It’s about safety (or, at least, the feeling of it).

On Reddit, the question of location tracking between partners is frequently posed and is just as frequently answered: “I think it should be fine for safety reasons,” said one user in a the most popular response to a thread.

In writing for the media platform Her Campus, one Pennsylvania State University student said that, if she already shares her location with her friends for safety, “why would I not share it with someone I am involved with romantically?”

For some of the editorial staff at the healthy living brand Poosh, location sharing also provided convenience.  

“If I want to call my boyfriend for something, sometimes I’ll check his location first (if he’s at the office, for example, I won’t call),” wrote Erika Harwood, managing editor. “Or if he tells me he’s on his way home and it seems to be taking unusually long, it’s easier to just check his location and see if he’s stuck in traffic.”

Harwood continued:

“Basically, it all boils down to me trying to eliminate as many phone calls from my day as possible.”

What these explanations all share is purpose and consent. The people featured here have told their partners about location sharing, and they have identified specific reasons to engage in this practice. Because of this, these situations are hardly cause for alarm.

What Malwarebytes hopes to draw attention to, however, are starkly different situations.

Coercion, control, and crisis

Location “sharing” implies two partners who consensually share their locations with one another. But as Malwarebytes discovered last year, location “sharing” isn’t the only activity that some people engage in—it’s also location spying.

According to the same survey last year, 41% of all people admitted to monitoring their partner in some way without their partner’s permission.

That includes 16% of people who non-consensually “tracked my spouse’s/significant other’s location through an app or Bluetooth tracker (like Apple AirTags, Tile, Find My)” and 13% who non-consensually “installed monitoring software/apps on spouse’s/significant other’s devices (e.g., Life360).”

The harms here are obvious.

Non-consensual location tracking in a relationship is a clear invasion of privacy. It puts sensitive information into one partner’s hands without the other partner knowing it, and the nature of the information itself can be used to harass and stalk someone—especially after a breakup.

Non-consensual location tracking is also present in domestic abuse, particularly in instances where one partner is being spied upon with the use of “stalkerware” apps. And while those who deploy these types of invasive apps are not guaranteed to be physically abusive against their partners, several documented cases highlight the risk.

As Danielle Citron, professor of law at UVA, wrote back in 2015 about what she called “cyber stalking apps”:

“A woman fled her abuser who was living in Kansas. Because her abuser had installed a cyber stalking app on her phone, her abuser knew that she had moved to Elgin, Illinois. He tracked her to a shelter and then a friend’s home where he assaulted her and tried to strangle her. In another case, a woman tried to escape her abusive husband, but because he had installed a stalking app on her phone, he was able to track down her and her children. The man murdered his two children. In 2013, a California man, using a spyware app, tracked a woman to her friend’s house and assaulted her.”

These cases may sound extreme, but they should not be ignored. They reveal that it isn’t location sharing itself which is harmful, but rather that harmful relationships will lead to harmful forms of location tracking.

Be sure that, if you do engage in location sharing, it is with someone who you trust, on both of your agreed terms, and in a way that you can turn off the location sharing at any point in the future.

What’s the answer?

Your real-time location is extraordinarily sensitive information, and as such, access to it should be understood as a privilege, not a right. No romantic partner has a “right” to your location just because their previous partners practiced location sharing. No romantic partner should coerce or harass you into location sharing. And no, the refusal to share your location, at any stage of the relationship, is not a “red flag.”

If you do decide to share your location with your partner, be sure to follow these guidelines:

• Have an open conversation about location sharing with one another. You must obtain consent from your partner if you’re going to share your locations. Spying on your partner’s location without their consent is a breach of trust.
• Have a reason why you’re engaging in location sharing. Many problems in a relationship will not be solved by location sharing. Have a firm reason why you want to share locations and what value it will provide. If you do not have a good reason, you may not need location sharing at all.
• Set up rules about location sharing. Location sharing can be enabled on a case-by-case basis for, say, music festivals, vacations, or solo hiking trips. It can also be enabled between partners indefinitely.
• Check in periodically about whether it is working. Just because you agreed to location sharing a year ago does not mean you cannot revisit the topic. See how location sharing feels and then see if you still want it later in your relationship.

As every couple has its own rules and behaviors for success, there is no single answer to whether you should share your location with your partner. You know your partner—and yourself—best to answer this question. Be safe, whatever option you choose.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

The ProtonMail people are accusing Microsoft’s new Outlook for Windows app of conducting extensive surveillance on its users. It shares data with advertisers, a lot of data:

The window informs users that Microsoft and those 801 third parties use their data for a number of purposes, including to:

• Store and/or access information on the user’s device
• Develop and improve products
• Personalize ads and content
• Measure ads and content
• Derive audience insights
• Obtain precise geolocation data
• Identify users through device scanning

Commentary.

Information newly made available under California law has shed light on data broker practices, including exactly what categories of information they trade in.

Any business that meets the definition of data broker must register with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) annually. The CPPA defines data brokers as businesses that consumers don’t directly interact with, but that buy and sell information about consumers from and to other businesses.

Where there’s money to be made you’ll find companies and individuals that will go to any length to get a piece of the action. At the moment there are around 480 data brokers registered with the CPPA. However, that might be just the tip of the iceberg, because there are a host of smaller players active that try to keep a low profile. There are 70 fewer data brokers listed than last year, but it is questionable whether they went out of business or just couldn’t be bothered with all the regulations tied to being a listed data broker.

The law requires registered data brokers to disclose in which of the following categories they actively trade information in:

• Minors (24)
• Precise Geolocation (79)
• Reproductive healthcare data (25)

Four of these data brokers are active in all three of these categories: LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Harmon Research Group, Experian Marketing Solutions, and BDO USA, P.C., Global Corporate Intelligence group.

What is particularly disturbing is the traffic in the data of minors. Children require special privacy protection since they’re more vulnerable and less aware of the potential risks associated with data processing.

When it comes to children’s data, the CCPA requires businesses to obtain opt-in consent to sell the data of a person under the age of 16. Children between the ages of 13 and 16 can provide their own consent, but for children under the age of 13, businesses must obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting or selling their data.

Data brokers were under no obligation to disclose information about selling data belonging to minors until the Delete Act was signed into law on October 10, 2023. The Delete Act is a Californian privacy law which provides consumers with the right to request the deletion of their personal information held by various data brokers subject to the law through a single request.

The next step forward would be if more states followed California’s example. So far only four states—California, Vermont, Oregon, and Texas—have enacted data broker registration laws.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which regulates children’s privacy, does not currently prevent companies from selling data about children. An update for the bill (COPPA 2.0), that would enhance the protection of minors, is held up in Congress.

In Texas, data brokers are governed by Chapter 509 of the Business and Commerce Code and this includes the specification that each data broker has a “duty to protect personal data held by that data broker.” This is important because, as we have seen, breaches at these data brokers can be combined with others and result in a veritable treasure trove of personal data in the hands of cybercriminals.

Check your digital footprint

If you want to find out how much of your data has been exposed online, you can try our free Digital Footprint scan. Fill in the email address you’re curious about (it’s best to submit the one you most frequently use) and we’ll send you a free report.

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your—and your family’s—personal information by using identity protection.