Pirelli's Smart Tires May Be in Trouble In the US

The tire maker's state-owned Chinese investor could be a problem if it wants to collect data in America.

Photo by: Pagani

By: Anthony Alaniz

May 29, 2025 at 1:00pm ET

Add Motor1.com as a preferred source in Google

Comment

Last year, Pirelli introduced the Cyber Tire, a new product designed to revolutionize vehicle dynamics by collecting specific driving data. However, the tire's sensors and software could lead to the United States restricting its sale. Pirelli has a state-owned Chinese investor, and the US has recently taken a strong stance against such companies that collect data on people in this country.

Bloomberg reports that Pirelli asked the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security for an opinion on the rule restricting the sale of connected car technology from China and Russia. According to documents Bloomberg said it saw, the BIS responded in an April 25 letter, warning the company that the tires could face restrictions.

Photo by: Pirelli

However, BIS didn't say vehicles using the technology would face an outright ban, according to the publication. It's unclear what types of restrictions Pirelli could face, but automakers using the technology might need to apply for special authorization to sell vehicles equipped with the high-tech tires. The Chinese investor, Sinochem, holds a 37 percent stake in the tire company.

What do you think?

View

Comments

The Cyber Tire launched nearly a year ago on the Pagani Utopia using Bluetooth-connected sensors to communicate with the vehicle. By relaying data to a car's central computer, the tire tells the vehicle the specific type of rubber and can adjust various software maps tuned specifically for that tire—things like ABS.

The rule could cause major headaches for automakers and suppliers. Polestar said in public comments made late last year that it could "effectively prohibit Polestar from selling its cars in the United States." Other automakers, like Ford, Nissan, Volvo, and Volkswagen Group of America, took issue with the rule's broad definitions.