Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to sue a product manufacturer for damages, or why a manufacturer is somehow obligated to include features that a municipality deems to be 'standard'.
The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of features creates a negative externality for local law enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for standing, and this sort of thing is hardly limited to auto antitheft features. Awarding a municipality damages or other relief here would set precedent opening the door to all sorts of whacky things. Should spraypaint manufacturers be held liable for graffiti? Should speaker manufacturers that sell devices without decibel-output-limiters be held liable for noise complaints? The sane answer here to all of this seems like 'no'.
The appropriate venue for dealing with this is federal auto safety regulations, not municipalities trolling manufacturers in civil court.
The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of features creates a negative externality for local law enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for standing, and this sort of thing is hardly limited to auto antitheft features. Awarding a municipality damages or other relief here would set precedent opening the door to all sorts of whacky things. Should spraypaint manufacturers be held liable for graffiti? Should speaker manufacturers that sell devices without decibel-output-limiters be held liable for noise complaints? The sane answer here to all of this seems like 'no'.
The appropriate venue for dealing with this is federal auto safety regulations, not municipalities trolling manufacturers in civil court.