The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right?

I strongly disagree, because there are options to: * Own a less expensive car * Take transit * Ride a bike * Find a closer job * Find a closer house * Ride share

Now, you can probably craft a specific story where none of those are an option. Let's say a single mother living in section-8 housing with limited job prospects who is already driving a really old car and who found one job 20 miles away in an area with no transit. That's pretty bad, and it represents failures of our system at multiple levels. First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom. Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation.

> The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right?

No, that's completely wrong. "Lack of choice" is not the only or main argument for consumer protection. We don't regulate the arsenic content of toys because parents have no choice but to buy commercially made toys.

The argument is "consumers are being treated by some bad actors in a manner by that interferes with their safety, privacy and dignity". The solution is to look at what the good actors are doing, and mandate that behavior to protect consumers.

> First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom.

Why? Those core issues are incredibly controversial. We shouldn't avoid regulating a new means of loan efforcement because we can't solve fundamental social issues.

> Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments.

What are you talking about? This technology (as discussed in the article) only applies to people who's are being offered subprime car loans and are a high risk on not paying. Additionaly, the technology in question should REDUCE the loan costs of subprime auto loans.

> Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation.

What are you talking about? The article doesn't give clear numbers for the US market for this technology, but it doesn't seem to be particularly small. "Corinne Kirkendall, vice president for compliance and public relations for PassTime, which has sold 1.5 million devices worldwide," "Roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year were subprime, and the volume of subprime auto loans reached more than $145 billion in the first three months of this year."

You can disagree, but your disagreement is based on incorrect assumptions about the availability, reliability and proximity of public transit, work to housing, etc. Your "specific story" that you think is "rare" isn't as rare as you think it is.

I agree with mandates. However, I do not believe that a vehicle lease agreement should be treated like a cell phone contract. It should be treated more like a home loan. I would be concerned if people could sign home loans that the penalty for default is that you can only come inside when its cold.

In an emergency, declaring the emergency to the car could be problematic, especially if its not the usual driver.

Sounds like stuff that would easily be solved by the market (of course it would be demanded, and of course it would be provided for the right price) if this becomes common practice. No need for legislation.

EDIT: Downvote away, but let us remember that having/operating a car is not by any means a basic human right that needs to be protected by legislation. On principle, do you think that if you live across the street from a car rental lot, you should automatically have "emergency" access to any car on the lot at any time? We're talking about essentially renting access to a car that may happen to be parked on your own property, and if you haven't paid for access to the car (or for access to emergency use of the car), then you really don't have any more inherent entitlement to its operation than you do to operating a car parked next door.

The negotiating position of people with these devices is already close to nothing. Auto financers can make it a take it or leave it situation, and the consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal they're given. Especially so if they need a car for work.

If you disagree with what I mentioned, I'd love to know why.

In most of the world, driving a car is an expensive luxury. Even here in Canada insurance for a young male is $4500 a year and gas costs $4.50 a gallon. Regular middle class students and teenagers do not drive, they walk or take the bus, often in blizzards or freezing cold temperatures. Getting a car is something you do when you've graduated and started a full time job.

Having to actually pay your monthly payment so that you can travel in comfort in a personal automobile is really, really far from oppressive.

Bicycles, buses, walking, bumming a ride, jitneys, trains, motorcycles, scooters, and so many other ways of getting there.

But that'd require some initiative.

The per-capita car ownership rate in Singapore is 12 cars per 100 people (or 1 car per 8.25 people). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_in_Singapore

... because the number of cars (well, COEs issued) is strictly capped by the government.

Who said it is a right? Getting payday loans or owning a credit card are not rights, yet we regulated the lending industry in those cases.