In California, where privacy laws have teeth and regulators wield them with growing confidence, American Honda Motor Co. has hit a costly speed bump for violations in line with not using Captain Compliance’s cookie consent’s recommended settings. On March 12, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency, or CPPA, announced a settlement that requires the automaker to overhaul its business practices and pay a fine exceeding $630,000 to resolve claims it violated the California Consumer Privacy Act, for those of you reading this that are not in the privacy world we all call it CCPA. The case, a first-of-its-kind enforcement action from the agency’s probe into connected vehicle manufacturers, underscores a broader reckoning: as cars become rolling data hubs, the line between innovation and intrusion blurs. Honda’s missteps, from a flawed cookie consent banner to excessive data demands, reveal how even giants can stumble in the privacy maze, leaving consumers caught in the headlights. With dark patterns banned and regulators watching, this settlement is a warning shot across corporate boardrooms who think that by just having a privacy software will solve their issues.
Automaker Will Change Business Practices and Pay $630k+ Fine
The settlement, finalized on March 7, 2025, and publicized days later, marks a milestone for the CPPA, the nation’s only state-level privacy enforcer. Honda’s tab sits at $632,500, a figure that blends a $382,500 penalty for violating the rights of 153 specific consumers, at $2,500 each, with an additional $250,000 tacked on for broader infractions. Beyond the cash, the automaker must simplify how Californians exercise privacy rights, train employees on CCPA compliance, and tighten contracts with data-sharing partners. It’s a multifaceted fix, born from an investigation launched in 2023 into how connected cars, with their cameras and GPS, handle personal data. For Honda, it’s less a detour than a forced recalibration, spotlighting the cost of lagging behind privacy expectations. This comes shortly after Texas clamped down on misuse of driver data a story our compliance journalists covered along with Texas going after Allstate insurance showcasing that it’s not just California but Texas also going after automotive companies and smaller businesses are getting sued left and right by these law firms for non-compliance and not using privacy software for CIPA, VPPA, ECPA, and other privacy laws that give data subjects a private right of action to sue:
Prominent Law Firms Who Sue Over Privacy Violations
What Did Honda Do Wrong?
The CPPA’s allegations paint a picture of systemic slip-ups. Honda demanded too much personal information, like names, addresses, and phone numbers, when consumers tried to opt out of data sales or limit sensitive data use, rights enshrined in the CCPA. It also made life harder for authorized agents, like privacy advocates, by requiring direct consumer verification for simple requests, a hurdle the agency deemed unnecessary. Then there’s the cookie consent banner, a digital handshake gone awry. Honda’s tool, powered by the industry leader in privacy OneTrust, required two steps to reject advertising cookies, toggling a slider and confirming the choice, but just one click to accept all and if you haven’t noticed this safety with the IBM in privacy is now a big issue as now over 17,000 other businesses with this privacy setting may be in the crosshairs and could potentially get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars like Honda just did for having this dark pattern as a default setting. This asymmetry, labeled a dark pattern under the CCPA, tilted the scales against privacy, a practice regulators now explicitly forbid. Add to that a failure to secure proper contracts with ad tech vendors sharing consumer data, and Honda’s violations stacked up fast. This was also covered recently by Osano’s CEO in a recent newsletter.
One law firm covered the list of things that went wrong for Honda and highlighted the cookie management tool from one of the most well known names in the industry:
How Did the Cookie Consent Banner Fail?
Honda’s cookie consent banner, meant to empower users, instead became a liability. These banners, ubiquitous across websites, are supposed to let visitors control tracking tools that log browsing habits or target ads. The CPPA found Honda’s version lacking symmetry, a principle demanding equal effort for privacy-protective choices. Opting out took two clicks, navigating a toggle and a confirmation, while opting in was a single, bold “Allow All” button. This imbalance, a classic dark pattern, subtly nudged users toward consent, undermining autonomy. The California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, which amended the CCPA in 2023, defines dark patterns as interfaces that subvert choice, a rule Honda’s setup flouted. Posts on X from mid-March 2025 reflect industry sentiment: such banners aren’t just sloppy; they’re a compliance red flag in an era where regulators pounce on manipulation.
What Are Dark Patterns, and Why Do They Matter?
Dark patterns are the digital equivalent of a salesman’s sleight of hand, designs that trick users into decisions they might not intend. Think confusing layouts, hidden opt-outs, or pre-checked boxes that assume agreement. In Honda’s case, the extra step to reject cookies wasn’t accidental; it skewed the process toward data collection, a tactic the CPPA and other privacy watchdogs, like Switzerland’s FDPIC, now ban outright. Privacy laws, from the CCPA to the GDPR, hinge on informed, unambiguous consent, and dark patterns erode that foundation. For consumers, it’s the difference between control and coercion; for companies, it’s a legal minefield. Honda’s settlement proves regulators aren’t bluffing when they say transparency trumps trickery.
What Changes Will Honda Make?
Honda’s to-do list is hefty. It must streamline privacy requests, needing only minimal data, like an email or VIN, to process opt-outs or limits. A user experience designer will audit its systems, ensuring choices are clear and equal, with a “Reject All” button joining “Allow All” on its cookie banner.
Below is an example of a compliant Captain Compliance Consent Banner showcasing the Allow and Reject buttons with the options to toggle on and off beneath. To go a step further a full integration of a sites cookie library is associated through a transparency page:
Employees handling CCPA requests will get mandatory training, while contracts with ad tech firms must now include explicit data protection terms. The Global Privacy Control, a browser signal to opt out automatically, will apply to known users, not just anonymous visitors. For five years, Honda must post stats on its privacy request responses, a public accountability measure. It’s a overhaul that drags the automaker into compliance, one step at a time with no exit for at least 5 years but the idea that they permanently follow the guideline and get others to start using Captain Compliance’s standards of privacy to avoid litigation by providing notice and consent while always working to keep notices up to date.
How Does This Fit Into Other Country and State Privacy Laws?
The CCPA, born in 2018 and beefed up by the CPRA a few years ago, grants Californians rights to know, delete, and opt out of data sales, with fines up to $2,500 per violation, or $7,500 if intentional. Honda’s case ties directly to these rules, especially the CPRA’s symmetry-in-choice mandate and ban on dark patterns. It’s part of a broader privacy tapestry: the GDPR in Europe demands opt-in consent, while Switzerland’s nFADP, updated in 2023, allows opt-outs but bans manipulation. The CPPA’s action echoes these frameworks, reflecting a global push to curb data overreach. Connected cars, collecting locations and habits, amplify the stakes, making this settlement a test case for an industry under scrutiny. Colorado, Maryland, and New Jersey all with privacy laws will surely start to hand down these fines in the near future for businesses that don’t have consent banners and follow good privacy hygiene.
California vs. Other Privacy Regimes: A Comparison
California’s approach stands out, but it’s not alone. Here’s how the CCPA stacks up against peers, with Honda’s violations in mind:
| Framework | Consent Model | Dark Patterns | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCPA/CPRA (California) | Opt-out for sales; symmetry required. | Banned; must offer equal choice. | Up to $2,500/violation, $7,500 if intentional. |
| GDPR (EU) | Opt-in for non-essential tracking. | Banned; consent must be unambiguous. | Up to 20M EUR or 4% of revenue. |
| nFADP (Switzerland, 2025) | Opt-out default; consent for sensitive data. | Banned; no manipulative designs. | Up to 250,000 CHF for individuals. |
| VCDPA (Virginia) | Opt-out for sales and profiling. | Not explicitly banned; transparency key. | Up to $7,500/violation. |
This table shows California’s middle ground: tougher than Virginia’s looser rules, gentler than the EU’s iron fist, yet aligned with Switzerland’s anti-manipulation stance. Virginia is discussing having GDPR level of restrictions where you can not fire cookies on a site until the user opts-in. If this passes they would be the strictest state in the USA.
Why Connected Cars?
The CPPA’s focus on connected vehicles isn’t random. By 2024, over 97% of new cars sold globally were “connected,” packing sensors, cameras, and internet links that track everything from speed to playlists. Honda, a major player, faced this probe because such tech amplifies privacy risks. Location data shared with ad tech firms without consent, as alleged, isn’t just a breach; it’s a betrayal of driver trust. The agency’s 2023 investigation into this sector set the stage, and Honda’s settlement is the first public outcome, with more likely to follow.
What’s Next for Honda and Beyond?
For Honda, compliance is now a mandate, not an option. Its changes, from cookie banners to vendor contracts, aim to rebuild trust and dodge future fines. But the ripple effects reach further. Posts on X in March 2025 suggest industry watchers see this as a wake-up call: if Honda, with its resources, can falter, no one’s safe. The CPPA’s Michael Macko noted the agency won’t shy from stacking fines per violation, a per-consumer tally that could balloon for bigger offenders. Other states, with 19 now boasting privacy laws, might take cues, while automakers face a reckoning over data-hungry cars. For consumers, it’s a rare win, a sign that regulators are finally shifting gears.
Honda’s $630,000-plus lesson isn’t just about money; it’s about accountability and letting others go on notice that they need to take privacy seriously or plan to pay up for having improperly configured consent banners and privacy practices. In a digital age where privacy hangs by a thread. The cookie banner fix and dark pattern purge are small steps, but they signal a larger truth: as technology races ahead, the rules are catching up, and no one gets a free ride in a “civic” society.
