mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Denies Illegal Data Sharing In OnStar Lawsuit

General Motors, alongside GM subsidiary OnStar and third-party data broker LexisNexis, have denied allegations of unlawful data sharing in response to a new lawsuit. The case, brought forth by a GM vehicle owner in Florida, claims that personal driving data was shared without his consent, significantly impacting his insurance premiums. GM’s data sharing practices were brought to light in a report filed early last month. Data sharing is considered a growing trend among major automakers.

A Cadillac XT6 owner has sued GM, stating that OnStar illegally shared his driving data.

The new lawsuit accuses GM, OnStar, and LexisNexis of violating privacy and consumer protection laws by allegedly sharing sensitive driving data from OnStar subscribers without proper consent. The complaint details that the plaintiff, Romeo Chicco, experienced a series of rejections from auto insurance companies after his driving data was reportedly shared through LexisNexis.

According to a recent report by Repairer Driven News, GM and its codefendants have formally responded to the allegations, asserting that all OnStar users agree to data sharing as part of the service’s terms and conditions. This has become a central point in their defense, suggesting that users are, at least technically, aware of the data sharing potential when they subscribe to OnStar services.

According to the complaint, OnStar’s privacy statement is “neatly hidden on their website, and made inconspicuous through the downloading of mobile applications,” adding that “This scheme is deceptive, unfair, and misleading to consumers.”

As GM Authority reported previously, the lawsuit which was initiated after Chicco found his driving habits were being monitored and shared. These habits include instances of hard braking and acceleration. He alleges that this surveillance was done without his explicit consent, a claim that GM disputes, pointing to multiple layers of consent provided by users at different stages of service enrollment.

GM Authority previously provided a step-by-step guide on how to opt out of GM sharing your driving data with insurance companies.

As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will be on the court’s interpretation of consent and privacy in the age of connected cars. GM and OnStar, maintaining their stance of non-liability, have requested the court to dismiss the case and direct it towards arbitration, as stipulated in their service agreements.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM legal news, GM business news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Fgm

    Reply
    1. I had that stuff turned on for my 2020 2500HD when I got it. I was driving easy to try and baby the truck. But if you are getting on the freeway you sometimes need that acceleration . Or someone stops suddenly and you jump on the brakes to avoid a collision. That type of behavior was showing up on the report they sent me. So accident avoidance becomes a reason to raise your rates. Yea, I turned that stuff off. Not sure if they stopped recording it, or simply stopped showing me the data.

      Reply
  2. Well, if he didn’t read it before signing, is it really GM’s fault? Regardless of whether or not it’s buried in all that mumbo jumbo, if it’s IN the mumbo jumbo and he clicked “yes” than that’s on the clicker not the clickee. That’s from a legal standpoint which does not speak to the ethical or unethical practice of burying important info in any contract that all companies do. I still think that doing this is wrong, but I also know that the process depends on me NOT reading the contract to work….if I don’t read it, the fault doesn’t lie with GM for doing it but with me for allowing them by failing to do my part of the work in reading the contract. Also, if he wasn’t driving like a tool they might not have raised his rates. They don’t do it just because they now have access to the info, he still had to drive fast or recklessly or more than he claimed he did for them to justify raising his rates. We are all aware of this, we all click yes on everything electronic we own without reading anything so crying about what happens after that is moot. As always, “Buyer beware”…read the fine print….always, always read the fine print.

    Reply
    1. Courts have thrown out contracts that end users have signed or accepted for being unreasonable. Something of this magnitude should really be an opt-in feature, not an opt-out buried among fine print. GM knew what it was doing when it buried these details. What makes it egregious is the data sold to insurance companies only covers things like hard braking or acceleration – none of which paints an accurate picture of good or bad driving habits. It’s not bad driving to slam on your brakes when a child runs out in the road, nor is it bad to accelerate from a red light (look at how many EVs are being marketed for having the ability to accelerate quickly). Yet if the insurance companies have their way, they will use these moments as an excuse to raise your rates or even blacklist you.

      This is an insurance scam.

      Reply
  3. IF there is a disclaimer in the fine print regarding the selling of information to third parties, regardless of how difficult it is to find, the case will be thrown out. Also, GM is not responsible for what that third party does with the information, they’re “just” the middleman so even if it’s unethical for LexisNexus to sell it to insurance companies, that part is not on GM and GM cannot control what LexisNexus does with the information that we, the non-contract-reading masses, gave them by our inaction all the permission they needed to sell our info. I guarantee that GM has better lawyers and I can guarantee that this was all very well checked and adequate loopholes built in to keep them free from even the tiniest fraction of liability. Every lawyer wants to have their “David v. Goliath” case to make their name (read that as: make bank).

    Reply
  4. People, I’m NOT siding with GM here….read it again. Sure, I don’t expect 100% positive responses, but I think my point is being lost in the anger towards GM. But…it’s whatever, I guess. People gonna people.

    Reply
  5. I can get where folks are coming from here but say you purchased your vehicle out of state, the dealers make you get OnStar, and in turn make you get whatever app to go with your vehicle. Most of us would just click the EULA and agree to finalize the deal on our new vehicle that we are excited to get. This information should be presented to the customer upon purchasing their vehicle. Not buried in some EULA for services you must have in order to purchase one of their vehicles.

    Reply
    1. I agree….which is why I don’t think the case will go anywhere IF it truly is in the agreement about information going to 3rd parties. They don’t have to put it on Page 1 for it to be legal, it just has to be there…somewhere….even if it’s on page 340 of 591 pages. It’s up to US to read these things, it absolves them of anything we click yes without reading it. We cannot be forced to “get” OnStar, that’s on us as well. We can always say no, I did the day I bought my ’24 Trax. I did the call with OnStar right there in the parking lot before I left and told them I didn’t want any of the features and I told them they couldn’t have my credit card info. Cancel me now.

      Reply
      1. I totally agree. My dealer very much made it seem like it was part of the deal, or they would not be able to complete the sale. I even had this happen on a much older GM product that I purchased, used. However, I still feel this should be explicitly explained to the customer as part of their purchase decision. It is a bit deceptive, and I am sure many people would have chosen a different brand if they were more informed or aware. Honestly doesn’t make a whole lot of sense why any auto manufacturer would want to sell our telematics to anyone unless they were making a decent amount of money doing so. In conclusion, consumers should be more aware and informed before making purchases (especially in this day and age). Unfortunately, a lot of people operate on good faith whilst they should have a basic understanding, we are just dollar signs to these companies.

        Reply
      2. To be clear, did you refuse to sign up to data tracking? The rumor going around online is that they might sell the customer’s data anyway despite no consent being given.

        Reply
        1. I had to go onto the app and click decline, yes, so there was an electronic record of me saying no. Ugh with internet rumors and “research”. Everyone has a friend of a neighbor whose cousin’s girlfriend yada yada yada. Nothing came up on my LexisNexus report and my insurance rates haven’t changed in years, I feel ok.

          Reply
          1. I only meant that these were anecdotal accounts from others that I could not confirm. I hope they are wrong. I’m eyeing a GM vehicle, and I don’t want to get caught up in this mess.

            Reply
  6. Hogwash gm.

    Reply
  7. I bought a 2024 Sierra Denali and the dealership practically forced me to sign up, setup the app, ECT. They said GM forces them to do it or the sales person doesn’t get some credit or something for selling the vehicle.

    I didn’t opt into the driver tracking even though the sales guy was pressuring me to (he was literally trying to press buttons on my phone and the trucks infotainment screen).

    After a few months of ownership, I got curious about what the enhancement driving metrics were, so I hit accept. I left if on for about a week before realizing it was garbage and then shut it off.

    After the lawsuit news broke, I pulled my LexisNexis report and they had my driving data all the way back to the day I drove off the dealership lot.

    So even without agreeing to their data tracking/selling, they store all the data from day one waiting for you to hit accept.

    Reply
  8. Simple, disconnect “OnSpy” from your vehicle. cut the wires or remove the fuse or whatever. Or don’t buy any GM vehicle because of Onstar. Does all this Onstar spying still apply if you buy used and not new.

    Reply
    1. I should check but I am certain it does. Otherwise, the dealer would of have no other reason to turn it on when I purchased my 2013 Buick Regal GS over 4 years ago.

      Reply
  9. Seeing that GM has just announced that it’s ending the Smart Driver feature, seems like a tacit admission of guilt to me. I never enabled it on my 2024 GMC. Didn’t like the idea of sharing my driving habits with anyone. Earning “points”? Spare me…

    Reply
  10. How about no underhanded hiding crap in fine print. Be upfront. I don’t trust GM or Onstar as far as I can throw them.

    Reply
  11. I never singed up for this (Onstar Smart Driver) or hit the accept on the myChevrolet app. After reading about it here in an earlier article, I found that it was selected on the myChevrolet app. I turned it off, and contacted LexisNexis and Verisk to send me information under the CCPA law (I am a California resident).

    LexisNexis had a lot of information that was similar to what one of the major credit agencies had, so I requested them to delete my data.

    Verisk had every drive I had ever made from the time I picked it up at the dealer, and sent the data to VDE-IRD-Root. I called Verisk and they said GM had told them to delete all the data on April 10, so I didn’t need to request a deletion of data. They also said the VDE-IRD-Root means that they transferred my data to Root Insurance (before GM cancelled it). Who knows what happened to the data after Root Insurance got it.

    I haven’t ever gone for class action lawsuits in the past, but I would enthusiastically go for this one if it were to happen!

    Reply
  12. Not a good look for GM. In the end, the court of public opinion is more powerful than fine print.
    Hopefully on star will die. I’m happy with other brands technology.

    Reply
  13. I think that GM-On star should never disclose driver habits even if the owner chose to enroll in On Star or not. This is a breach of privacy. In Canada, we have a law that small prints do not apply in a case where an individual against a big corporation like an insurance company. If there is a trial, the individual wins. Do not tell me that GM lawyers can prevent any suit. See the pursuit against GM Canada and GENMO. Genmo won because the lawyers had not made the difference between an active employee and a retired employee IN THEIR FINE PRINTS.

    Reply
  14. Dirty pool !!! I didn’t want onstar but now they just add it on the bill of sale. Too expensive and now they sell our info…NICE

    Reply
  15. I have had OnStar on many GM vehicles. I never really worried or even thought about, what they may be doing with my data. I currently own a 2022 Chevy Colorado WT. OnStar doesn’t come on this vehicle, so I guess I am fortunate.

    Reply
  16. Everyone defending GM and saying its in the fine print – YOU ARE A PART OF THE PROBLEM. You can’t just sign off on this and be okay with it. As one of the people in one of these class action suits – it’s your duty to stand up for what’s right for not just you but the future generations.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel