Have you ever heard of a kill-switch? Unless you are a devotee of American legislative developments relating to motor vehicles, you may not be familiar with this concept.

You may know KillSwitch Engage, an American metalcore band that achieved fame in 2004 with the release of The End of Heartache. The reference to KillSwitch Engage is on point because KillSwitch in vehicles may raise only bewilderment and confusion – The Beginning of Heartache.

So, what is a kill-switch? In the United States, it is a federally mandated system designed to detect driver impairment that has the capacity to limit or even prevent the operation of motor vehicles. This system is found in section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) adopted by Congress on November 15, 2021.

This congressional provision may become one of the most consequential automotive regulations in modern American history. Section 24220 mandates that all new vehicles sold after 2026 include AI‑driven impaired‑driving prevention technology capable of ‘preventing or limiting motor vehicle operation’.

It would be the first government-enabled onboard passive system which is capable of detecting driver impairment. Many fear this could be used as a pathway for the first kill-switch ever required in American vehicles.

Proponents of the amendment frame the kill-switch as a life‑saving safety measure. For example, the Texas-based organisation, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), argue that the technology could prevent thousands of impaired-driving deaths annually. It is estimated that the law, also known as the HALT Act, could save more than 10,000 lives annually.

However, opponents of section 24220 raise some formidable privacy-related objections, especially the ability of governments to remotely control the vehicle, even switching it off. The fact that the recent patent filings demonstrate that the technological infrastructure for real‑time monitoring, remote shutdown, and data sharing with authorities is already being built, proves that these concerns are not hypothetical.

Section 24220 is distinctly ambiguous. It requires that vehicles be equipped with systems that can passively monitor the driver, detect impairment, and disable or limit vehicle operation if impairment is suspected. But the law does not identify or define the technology that should be used. It also does not prohibit remote access, and it does not include privacy protections. It delegates all implementation authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal agency that regulates vehicle safety. This agency is responsible for turning the 2021 impaired‑driving prevention mandate into real‑world rules that critics fear could become a government‑enabled kill-switch. This ambiguity is the foundation of the current political and civil‑liberties backlash and raises the question of who really owns the vehicle if its rightful owner cannot have full control of it.

Proponents of the kill-switch legislation argue that all this surveillance is for our own good, for our safety, yet in the process, they overlook the ramifications of the law on people’s privacy and freedom of choice.

The most vocal opponents of these regulations are Representative Thomas Massie (R), Senator Rand Paul (R), and Senator Mike Lee (R). Thomas Massie has emerged as the leading critic, arguing that the mandate creates a government‑enabled kill-switch, a surveillance system embedded in every new vehicle and a ‘pre‑crime’ enforcement tool that restricts movement based on AI predictions. ‘If the government can disable your car, it can control your movement,’ he says. As for Senator Rand Paul, he warns that the system could be used for warrantless surveillance, political targeting, and automated law enforcement. Senator Mike Lee supports privacy protections and warns that regulators, corporations, or hackers could misuse the Kill‑Switch architecture.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the strongest supporters are Senator Jeff Merkley (D), Senator Gary Peters (D) and many safety-oriented Democrats. Jeff Merkley, supporting the impairment detection mandate, argues that federal regulation is needed to protect consumers. Senator Gary Peters frames the Kill-Switch as a life‑saving tool and dismisses concerns about remote shutdown as ‘misinterpretations’.

While Congress continues to debate the Kill-Switch, automakers are preparing for a world where real‑time monitoring and remote enforcement are not just possible, but routine. In 2023, a patent was filed for a system enabling remote disabling of vehicle functions, remote engine shutdown, geofencing movement (virtual boundaries around physical location), and escalating restrictions (for example, disabling AC, radio, or acceleration). The patent describes automated repossession processes and remote immobilisation.

Patents have also been filed for vehicle‑to‑infrastructure (V2I) communication, real‑time data transmission to law enforcement, AI‑based driver monitoring and behavioural analysis systems. These filings show a clear trajectory: vehicles are evolving into networked surveillance platforms, not private machines. Some of these patents include eye‑tracking, biometric analysis, behavioural prediction, and impairment detection. These systems align perfectly with the Kill‑Switch mandate and raise profound privacy concerns.

Compared to the United States, the European Union’s approach is safety without surveillance – at least for the time being. The EU’s General Safety Regulation 2019/2144 (GSR2) mandates autonomous emergency braking (AEB), lane-keeping technology, driver monitoring for distraction, and cybersecurity protections. But the EU explicitly prohibits remote shutdown, government access to vehicle controls and mandatory impairment‑disabling systems. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU AI Act make a kill-switch legally impossible.

Similarly, Australia rejects remote immobilisation, always-on impairment detection, and government-controlled vehicle shutdown. Australia’s Privacy Act and OAIC guidance strongly oppose the application of such systems.

The United States is now the only major Western jurisdiction with a law that could be interpreted as requiring always‑on monitoring, predictive impairment detection, automated vehicle disabling and potential remote access. It is our view that these rules could also be interpreted with the ‘pre-crime’ concept – predicting wrongdoing before it occurs – in mind.

Why do critics call the Kill-Switch a ‘pre‑crime’ system? This system is no longer science fiction because Kill‑Switch’s AI predictions determine that you might be impaired to drive or continue driving. It restricts a driver’s freedom before wrongdoing; your car is disabled before any illegal act occurs. With continuous surveillance, the system must always be on, and it cannot manually be switched off. There is no due process, meaning that you cannot appeal the AI’s decision. Once installed, the system could be used for speeding enforcement, insurance scoring, geofencing, political control, debt collection, and law‑enforcement shutdowns. This is the architecture of predictive control, not safety.

Why is the Kill-Switch bad for drivers? False positives could immobilise vehicles, which in practice would not be uncommon. Medical conditions, fatigue, or sensor errors could prevent driving. Privacy erosion, without a federal privacy law, allows automakers to sell driver data. Cybersecurity risks, such as a system capable of disabling a vehicle, are a prime hacking target. There is a risk of government misuse, where there is no explicit ban on remote shutdown. Or the technology could be misused by corporations, where lenders already use remote immobilisers. As a result of corporate misuse, backed by government compliance, the insurers could demand access to impairment data.

In summary, Kill-Switch constitutes a philosophical shift where drivers become subjects of automated suspicion, not autonomous individuals.

The American Kill‑Switch mandate is not merely a safety regulation. It is a structural shift in how mobility is governed. Combined with automaker patents for real‑time monitoring and remote control, it creates the foundation for a transportation system where AI judges your fitness to drive, corporations monitor your behaviour, authorities can access your data, and your vehicle can be disabled without your consent.

Unless Congress revisits the mandate, the American driver may soon discover that the most powerful force on the road is no longer the engine but the AI-generated algorithm. The algorithm may soon require us, humans, to prove that we are human.

Rather than being The End of Heartache, KillSwitch Engage’s award-winning music track reminds us that the Kill-Switch mandated technology could be The Beginning of Heartache!

Dejan Hinic is a financial and investment expert operating from Belgrade, Serbia. He received his law degrees from the University of Belgrade and the University of Queensland

Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University. He also served as the Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.