Connected cars and the telecom question: are original equipment manufacturers ready for regulatory scrutiny?

Under Slovenian law and the EU framework it is built upon, an entity may be required to register as an operator of a public telecommunications network or as a provider of publicly available electronic communications services if it provides a service for remuneration that consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals, including machine-to-machine communications.

The “public” element is equally important. A network or service is generally considered public where it is made available to an undefined group of end users. This raises important questions for OEMs. Consider, for example, the in-car WiFi hotspot that many premium vehicles now offer. Passengers, who may not be the vehicle owner, connect their devices and access the internet. Does this make the OEM a provider of publicly available electronic communications services? 

The answer is not straightforward, and depends on how the underlying connectivity model is structured.

Several factors matter when assessing whether an OEM falls within the scope of telecom regulation. These include whether connectivity is provided directly by the manufacturer or through a third-party mobile network operator, whether the in-vehicle communication layer is accessible to passengers or external parties, how contractual arrangements with network operators are structured, and whether the connectivity offering constitutes an independent service on its own or is ancillary to the car.

One notable observation from the Slovenian market is that car manufacturers are absent from the national register of telecommunications operators. To date, no OEM has been formally registered as an operator. The only example that comes close is Starlink, which is registered due to the nature of its satellite-based connectivity services. This registration means that Tesla vehicles integrating Starlink systems operate within an already compliant framework. 

This absence raises questions. It could reflect a genuine conclusion if an OEM’s connectivity model does not trigger registration obligations. But it may also mean that the issue has not been thoroughly examined. Given the increasing regulatory attention to the sector, there is a real risk of the latter possibility – that the connectivity of a car manufacturer’s OEM may require registration obligations once it is formally examined.

Connected-car services are too complex for any single player to control the entire value chain. As industry observers have noted, the success of connected-car offerings often hinges on the strength and structure of partnerships between OEMs, mobile network operators, and technology providers. These partnerships determine not only the quality of the end-user experience but also the allocation of regulatory responsibilities.

When an OEM contracts with a mobile network operator to provide connectivity, the precise terms of that arrangement matter enormously. If the network operator is the service provider and the OEM is merely facilitating access, the regulatory burden may rest primarily with the telecom partner. If the OEM takes on a different role, however, the analysis may shift. Regulators are likely to look beyond contractual labels to the economic and operational reality of the arrangement. 

The questions being raised reflect a broader trend across European markets where regulators are grappling with how traditional telecommunications frameworks apply to new connectivity models. The role of telecommunications in the connected-car ecosystem has attracted academic and policy attention, and researchers are now examining how the interplay between automotive manufacturers and telecom providers shapes regulatory outcomes.

Added to this evolving landscape is the European Commission's proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA), which is expected to fundamentally reshape how telecommunications services are regulated across the EU. Among its most significant proposals is the introduction of a streamlined authorisation framework that would allow providers of electronic communications services to operate across the EU based on a single notification to one national regulatory authority. 

For OEMs whose connected vehicle services may trigger registration obligations, the DNA could prove transformative. Rather than navigating the labyrinth of 27 national registration requirements, a harmonised EU-wide system would significantly reduce administrative burden and regulatory complexity. While the DNA remains under legislative consideration, automotive manufacturers should watch its development closely since the DNA has the potential to simplify cross-border compliance.

For OEMs operating connected-car services in markets like Slovenia, the prudent course is clear: to conduct a thorough review of current connectivity arrangements before regulatory scrutiny intensifies. This means examining the business model in detail, understanding how connectivity flows from network operator to vehicle to end user, and assessing whether any part of this chain could be characterised as an electronic communications service.

Such a review is an opportunity to ensure that connected car services are built in line with compliance regulations, reducing the risk of future disruption and building trust with customers who increasingly expect seamless and reliable connectivity as part of their driving experience.