Pandora’s box is being opened, and this could just be the start.
The Department of Justice has instructed Apple and Google to surrender an OBDII app’s user data in a new emissions investigation. The target? EZ Lynk, a name that might ring a bell for many of you and likely caused a reaction.
Five years after the DOJ took legal action against EZ Lynk for allegedly failing to cooperate with an Environmental Protection Agency inquiry, the Feds have now subpoenaed Apple and Google for data from at least 100,000 individuals who downloaded the EZ Lynk Auto Agent app. At the core of this situation is the DOJ’s claim that EZ Lynk intentionally aided customers in altering their vehicles to contravene the Clean Air Act, putting user privacy in jeopardy.
It appears now that attorneys seek to question users regarding how they employed EZ Lynk’s products after evaluating and associating their user app data. Understandably, advocates for consumer rights are vociferously questioning why the DOJ needs the identities, addresses, and even purchase histories of consumers. Who is facing prosecution here, and precisely who are the Feds pursuing?
In the latest episode of The Drivecast, we delve into why EZ Lynk is making headlines again, what’s unfolding with the DOJ, and, more crucially, what implications this has for today and possibly tomorrow.
Are you new here? The Drivecast is The Drive‘s weekly podcast that explores the controversies, stories, and key figures influencing the automotive industry and the current state of our roads. Fueled by The Drive‘s inside knowledge, original reporting, exclusive content, and insights, The Drivecast strives to make everyone feel like an insider.
Tune into The Drivecast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Amazon Music. Love it? Like it? Want to lend a hand? Leave a five-star review on your preferred platform to help promote The Drivecast to a broader audience. Got a suggestion, tip, request, or feedback? Contact us at [email protected]. I assure you, we read every email.
Complete Transcript
Joel: Just to clarify, I want to express my apologies. We are a weekly podcast. You’re not mistaken; we didn’t have an episode last week. A series of events you might find hard to believe: I was traveling in Austria and Germany for work. Kyle was set to record the podcast, and then something involving smallpox and fleas and a potential scenario occurred, I’m unsure about the details. Everyone is fine. 10 plagues. Kyle’s fine. All is well.
Anyway, let’s get serious; we’re back discussing the ongoing diesel emissions situation. Currently, there is a very outspoken group online criticizing the government for the perceived unreliability of the mandated emissions control systems on diesel trucks, claiming it to be a major issue and vowing to remove and combat these systems on trucks, among other things. Is this just a case of a lot of vocal opinions with little actual action? A lot of commotion?
Caleb: Many people have engaged in this for years, more than a decade, actually. Since the implementation of emissions systems on diesel pickup trucks, the aftermarket industry has sought methods to eliminate them. For years, they managed to market these delete kits as intended for off-road use exclusively, but that eventually became contentious. By the mid to late 2010s, we noticed the federal government pursuing not so much individuals, but certainly businesses, tuners, and aftermarket manufacturers that created these parts, installed them, or provided software. This is how EZ Lynk got entangled in this matter. It’s not so much that they were writing tunes that allowed trucks to operate without their emissions systems, but they offered a platform misused by tuners for that purpose.
That’s what’s critical here. The challenge is deciding, alongside the federal government, whether EZ Lynk intentionally facilitated emissions deletions, or if they merely provided a platform that others exploited.
Joel: Understood. And before diving into EZ Lynk and the related news, there are numerous approaches to achieve this. EZ Lynk is just one method and it certainly triggers a range of discussions here. However, this isn’t limited to EZ Lynk; there are various ways to implement a diesel delete system on a truck, correct?
Caleb: Absolutely. It really hinges on the technique you employ to reflash your ECU after removing the diesel particulate filter and exhaust gas recirculation system. EZ Lynk was simply a remarkably popular option among users. Over the past six years of my writing career, one can observe just how frequently these topics have emerged in the news, indicating how significant a target it has become for regulatory bodies. What’s particularly intriguing now is the focus of the Feds, especially via the EPA; their attention has shifted towards deregulation, setting aside a lot of this matter, yet we continue to see the DOJ pursue EZ Lynk. Currently, the discourse has turned more towards privacy and data issues rather than environmental concerns.
Joel: It’s quite shocking to hear concerns regarding data privacy in the context of something as straightforward as removing emission equipment from my pickup truck. But considering cars are integrated with technology now, how did we arrive at this point? Provide us with some background.
Caleb: Sure, many might not be well-acquainted with EZ Lynk. If you’re involved with diesel trucks, there’s a strong possibility you have heard of it. This whole saga began in 2021 when the DOJ sued EZ Lynk on behalf of the EPA, asserting that they offered customers a means to bypass the emission systems on their vehicles, resulting in increased emissions of harmful gases, which many people associate with diesel. This litigation started five years ago, and after much back and forth, the courts eventually ruled in favor of EZ Lynk under what is known as Section 230. This provision shields a platform that is used and abused by others, essentially exonerating them from accountability for the illegal activities that occur using it.
That ruling was later overturned in 2025. An appellate court determined that this did not qualify for protections under Section 230. For context, Section 230 protects firms like Facebook and Instagram from facing legal consequences for the illegal activities occurring on their platforms. The same principle applies here. Consequently, referring to EZ Lynk as a diesel tuner isn’t completely accurate; they manufacture an OBD2 tool intended for users to update software, clear codes, and so on. It’s advertised to the general public as a method to access the OBD2 port on a vehicle or truck. Fleet operators can utilize it for tracking electronic logging if managing a commercial fleet. Therefore, it wouldn’t be precise to label EZ Lynk specifically as a diesel tuner, but many diesel tuners have employed EZ Lynk for such ends for over a decade.
And that information is readily available online. I’m not making arbitrary claims. You can easily discover instances of EZ Lynk diesel tuners online; I recently found discussions about it on Facebook just two weeks ago, though it’s now a more discreet topic, but it still appears openly in certain forums. Much of this can be traced back to the decreased regulation and reduced focus on criminal charges against individuals who tamper with OBD2 ports by the EPA. This forms the foundational narrative of this situation.
Joel: Hold on a moment. There’s plenty of intriguing information in what you’ve stated. Everything you share is indeed captivating, Caleb. There’s one point in particular you mentioned: we know this issue is about using a diesel defeat device to bypass emissions regulations, tools, and measures in trucks. However, it’s vital to remember this is a scan tool. It’s an instrument that allows you to manage codes; you might wonder if it’s a catalytic converter issue or a spark plug malfunction. People utilize it for specific concerns or scenarios here. This isn’t a malicious device being sold. A wide range of similar devices is available at places like AutoZone, O’Reilly’s, Advanced Auto Parts, and Amazon. While I would presume not all can execute a diesel defeat situation, is that accurate, Caleb?
Caleb: Absolutely. Whether or not one views the EZ Lynk Auto Agent as malevolent depends on what you perceive EZ Lynk’s role is within the diesel aftermarket community. On their website, you won’t find any references indicating its use for tuning diesel trucks; they make that very clear. Additionally, they have multiple disclaimers pointing out that any third-party software utilized on their device is not their responsibility. Consequently, there’s considerable debate over how aware EZ Lynk was of these practices. Many suggest they were aware and deliberately continued to make it available to users. However, the DOJ is now sending subpoenas to corporations like Apple and Google, aiming to acquire user data for at least 100,000 individuals. We lack precise figures, but we know it’s at least that many and likely more.
Their objective is essentially to discern how each individual utilized the EZ Lynk Auto Agent app on their phones, whether it’s through the Apple app store or Google Play Store. This is where privacy advocates are mobilizing their concerns. Just as this issue has environmental implications, we currently witness a significant focus on privacy issues, an aspect thoroughly covered in a recent Forbes article indicating that over 100,000 individuals might have their data handed over to the Department of Justice. According to the DOJ, “You agreed to the terms and conditions, so you’ve effectively waived your privacy rights,” prompting a substantial outcry, justifiably so.
Joel: Why is this resurfacing now? After all, the initial case began five years ago. What has triggered this new report?
Caleb: The recent appellate court’s overturning of the Section 230 protections in 2025, combined with the current issuance of subpoenas, greatly piqued the interest of technical outlets and the media. When discussing consumer data, this delves into sensitive details like addresses and purchasing patterns. They are seeking highly specific data many individuals would be unwilling to share, especially without legitimate justification to do so with the government. Much of this was unveiled in that recent Forbes article, which is why it has become such a focal point. Expect to see more on this, not only within automotive circles but across tech platforms.
Joel: Clearly, we addressed the estimate of around 100,000 individuals, and that figure only scratches the surface of the actual extent, correct? Do you foresee this expanding? We’ve observed many Section 230 instances, particularly concerning Facebook and Instagram with youth imaging and privacy laws, along with content moderation. Shall we anticipate this situation evolving within the automotive community, or is this likely to remain contained?
Caleb: That’s an insightful query. According to that Forbes article, which I will continue to reference for valuable context and data, the scale of this current situation is roughly tenfold larger than a recent notable Section 230 probe where the government sought consumer data from users of a Gunscope app back in 2019. Therefore, there’s a viable chance of escalation here. This poses a genuine concern.
It’s not solely about offering protections for those who have broken the law, but rather about maintaining the privacy of individuals who didn’t employ tools in an inappropriate manner, such as ordinary citizens not fully aware of activities in particular niche areas of the diesel aftermarket; people just trying to track how frequently their fleet drivers are on the road or clearing codes for minor personal repairs. That is the truly alarming aspect of this, and it explains why many who may not have previously followed the EZ Lynk saga are now paying close attention.
Joel: Understandably. The last time this situation arose, Joe Biden was president, and now we have Donald Trump in office. Does that matter? The reason I ask is, as you’ve highlighted and we at The Drive have reported, President Trump has significantly reduced EPA measures, rolled back environmental initiatives, and shifted climate change discussions in various ways. Yet, this seems to juxtapose the broader narrative we’ve reported. What’s happening and why now? Or is it a case that a lower-level appellate court, as you indicated, is acting independently of the Trump administration, despite being part of the federal government?
Caleb: It is indeed surprising. We have extensively covered online discussions, particularly in the diesel truck community over the past few years. After President Trump’s inauguration, I released an article with a headline suggesting diesel tuners were eager for Trump’s EPA to take a hands-off approach, but hold on. The reason I mention this is that many existing laws persist, and whether they are actively enforced by agencies like the EPA now doesn’t guarantee they won’t be in future administrations.
Many within the diesel truck community perceive these recent regulatory moves as victories as the federal government reassesses rules around diesel exhaust fluid, especially in colder states like Alaska and Wyoming. Discussions have surfaced about power limitations when diesel exhaust fluid runs low. This sparks both safety and reliability discussions, presenting a nuanced dialogue, given the obvious drawbacks of increased emissions alongside legitimate concerns about an operational fleet’s downtime due to emission system faults.
One might expect some pause until new administrations take over in 2028. Yet, it’s unclear. President Trump has indeed engaged in these scenarios. There was a diesel tuner in Wyoming imprisoned due to emissions deletions, and some state government officials advocated for his pardon, which Trump granted.
Predicting what might happen with EZ Lynk is premature as we still await developments in this case. There are several differences between that previous Trump pardon and the situation between the DOJ and EZ Lynk. Nevertheless, it exemplifies Trump’s openness to engaging in seemingly minor cases that, to some, are trivial; but, in reality, they hold considerable weight, particularly concerning potential precedents for companies such as Facebook and Instagram. While the stakes for those two entities would be on a significantly larger scale, I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of repercussions.
Joel: Do you genuinely believe this could initiate a broader ripple effect? Or is it too early to predict?
Caleb: I would argue it’s too early to ascertain, but I also deem it a legitimate concern. Anyone knowledgeable about this sector would agree that the outcomes of this case might indeed propagate further. Altering a diesel truck’s emissions systems is not merely a matter of using a hacksaw on a DPF. It necessitates more than software modifications; it requires precise configurations for proper operation without emissions equipment. It is not something one could easily undertake in their driveway without specialized tools. Therefore, like I mentioned, this could set a precedent for tools previously used without detailed exploration. It’s intriguing to note this shift towards a data privacy narrative.
When the Forbes report surfaced, I thought, “Hold on; this is taking an unexpected direction from my previous reports regarding the DOJ’s case against EZ Lynk in 2021.” Now, several concerns arise: will the government pursue action against end users? That’s relatively new. Historically, those facing significant fines, amounting to millions both in civil and criminal penalties, were aftermarket providers rather than individual diesel truck owners. The closest instance of direct action against owners involved a man named Mike Seybold. He listed a deleted Ram Cummins Power truck on Facebook Marketplace, prompting state officials to contact him to reinstate the emission systems, ultimately leading to the truck’s destruction under the Biden administration at the state level.
Thus far, there hasn’t been substantial publicized action against end users, specifically diesel truck owners employing devices to remove emissions systems.
I believe the predominant concern for individuals who have utilized these devices in the past for such purposes stems from the potential for unwelcome visits from authorities, especially if the Feds aggressively pursue this case. It’s not solely about their immediate actions over the next two or three years, but rather what transpires further down the line. Thus, it’s understandable for people to express valid apprehension regarding what may unfold. And I state this without attempting to offer justifications for individuals who blatantly break the law. I acknowledge the complexities of efficient diesel exhaust fluid requirements; I recently interviewed engineers from the Ford PowerStroke team, the Cummins team, and the Duramax team. They all affirmed the significant advancements in contemporary diesel after-treatment systems, achieving 90 to 95% emission capture before exhaust exits the tailpipe. That’s commendable. However, persistent reliability issues leading to increased downtime and transportation challenges for individuals relying on these as personal vehicles cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, it’s easy for outsiders to perceive truck owners negatively, assuming all operate $90,000 Platinum F-250s. Reality, however, is far more diverse; many may simply possess a 2010 Duramax-powered Chevy three-quarter ton they use for hauling lawn care gear, and now they find themselves without their truck due to an emission system failure. There’s much more nuance to this situation than meets the eye, and that reality isn’t changing anytime soon.
Joel: If someone owns a truck that isn’t a flashy, new $90,000 Platinum Ford, could it be possible that someone unknowingly purchased a vehicle with a deleted or compromised system? Presumably not from a dealership, but could that occur in private sales?
Caleb: That would likely not happen through a dealership. Most dealerships, given the scrutiny they’ve witnessed from the federal government over the past five years, steer clear of deleted trucks. It varies depending on the buyer’s knowledge and how prevalent deletes are in one’s area. For instance, in Missouri, there are plenty of individuals who have lifted diesel trucks, and if someone thinks that’s just their regular sound, they might inadvertently purchase a secondhand truck that has been modified. Not long ago, you’d see listings specifically advertising deleted and tuned as selling points, but since regulatory actions intensified, those types of ads have dwindled.
Now, a seller is far less likely to disclose that information, especially if preceded by documentation. It is much less common than previously. And if a prospective buyer doesn’t ask or realize to inquire about modifications, they could easily end up with a truck that lacks its emissions systems. For instance, my grandfather could be in such a position, needing a work truck and coming across a 2012 model with 200,000 miles; he may not think to check if it’s been straight piped with the DPF removed, simply because that wasn’t a consideration in his era.
There exists a varied array of buyers and drivers of diesel trucks, so generalizations can be perilous. Yet, it’s wise to maintain an open perspective; rule nothing out.
Joel: Always keep an open mind. That’s sage advice for everyone.
Caleb: Absolutely! If you have any inquiries or potential story ideas, especially if they are based on firsthand experiences or insights, don’t hesitate to share them with us at [email protected]. That’s our tip line. You can also reach me at [email protected]. We’ll thoroughly review anything you send our way, but it’s crucial to recognize that this issue isn’t disappearing anytime soon.