This article and similar threads keeps popping up in my feed, so I’m going to keep spreading this tip around. (I’m using Android.)

I use tasker to automatically lockdown my phone based on accelerometer and Bluetooth. A sharp tap to my phone or being disconnected from Bluetooth is enough to lockdown my phone and disable all biometric access. I dialed in the sensitivity so that it doesn’t take much, just a tap on my pocket, being set down a little too aggressively, pulled from my car and thrown to the ground is all it takes. I set it to notify me with a quick vibrate when it does this for a little added confidence that it is behaving as expected.

For a little added effort I can have tasker snap a photo that gets backed up to the cloud any time there is a failed unlock attempt, just be prepared for some unflattering photos of yourself looking like an aging male boomer posting selfies to the facebook.

I understand the difference

Proceeds to conflate ability and willingness again.

You sound like a corporate chat bot stuck in a rhetorical loop.

You seem to be confused about the difference between can and will. I don’t believe every or even most manufacturers would actually do this, but pretending that they cannot do it (or something like it) purely due to market pressure is naive.

Or the car just doesn’t start one day because it hasn’t connected to its server in a month, forcing you to go to the dealer to fix it. Why do you so fervently believe a manufacturer wouldn’t resort to tactics like this that they already employ for other systems? It’s naive to think that manufacturers would never remotely disable a car in full or in part because it has been modified without authorization. If it profits them, they physically can, and no regulation prevents it, they will. Right to repair is a nice movement, that I fully support, but it’s very very far from a universal right anywhere.