Honda Tells Police It Won't Track Stolen Accord Because Owner Didn't Pay For Location Service

While I sorta get it Honda and its dealers get "protect and serve" without question in every location nation wide without question or hesitation.

What's so hard to understand? If you won't pay for the insurance you don't get the coverage. If he really wasn't told about the insurance when he bought it he may have a case against the dealer, but not Honda.

This is 100% Honda obstructing justice and that is criminal.

The POLICE were trying to locate the car NOT the owner.

The owner contacted the police and the police contacted Honda.

This has NOTHING to do with the owner.

Honda impeded a criminal investigation.

Thus, Honda needs to get bitched slapped over their protection of criminals.

dude...please give it up.

just like OnStar & other in-vehicle services, it depends on what services the registered customer has paid for.

If the car was simply stolen & not involved in some terrorist plot or apart of some more serious life-safety situation; the manufacturer is NOT obliged to provide location data.

Perhaps a compromise would be for the owner to retroactively pay for the service along with a 50% penalty, still worth it to recover the car.

I see both sides, if Honda does this then why would anyone buy the service if they can get the main benefit for free if something does happen? If they don't do it, then they look like aholes obstructing justice. There has to be a middle ground.

The middle ground is for the insurance company to jack up coverage rates on that owner.

Ask the owner’s insurance company to pay!

Good call

Honda all about profit! Criminal and car already getting disassembled right now! Insurance company going feel this one. LOL!

There are a couple of things at issue here.

Why is this newsworthy? I feel like it's an attempt to put Honda under a bad light.

First, if he didn't pay for services, then he doesn't receive services. Plain as day. If the dealership was required to disclose the availability of this service at purchase, then that is an issue for another time. It still doesn't make Honda legally obligated to provide the service.

Second, If you don't pay for services (of any kind) and a company is obligated to provide a service just because a cop is asking for it, then that would be a ridiculous precedence. No one would pay for the service and call police, maybe unnecessarily, to get involved. And what would validate a warrant to be issued? Only if someone's life was in danger or the public's safety was in danger.

Third, I feel like there's a sense of entitlement here from this owner (and from others who feel Honda should have cooperated). How do we know the owner didn't do what HE is supposed to do, like lock up his car? Close all windows?

Fourth, the last paragraph of this article where it states, "While connected car services promise more convenient vehicle ownership and improvements to vehicle security, these systems' flaws run the risk of souring new car buyers' perceptions of these technologies." has no relevance to the situation. There were no "system flaws". The buyer simply didn't pay, so Honda didn't provide the service. End of story.

And now that I think about it. This was a total non-newsworthy article and situation.

Ah, Jazzy you're so full of it.

I've been very pro Honda in recent years because, frankly, it's been putting out great products (new Civic, new Accord, new CR-V, etc.).

Hell, I even wrote this: https://www.autospies.com/news/How-Did-Honda-Do-It-Is-The-All-new-Accord-The-BEST-Looking-Mainstream-Sedan-97088/

Now if the automaker can get its reliability in order like the good 'ol days...