Texas Sues GM For Collecting And Selling Driver Data
11
Sponsored Links
The drama surrounding General Motors’ alleged data collection practices continues, with the latest development coming from the U.S. state of Texas where state Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the automaker. The lawsuit is seeking compensation for drivers, as well as a fine levied against GM and the destruction of any improperly collected data. The lawsuit calls out General Motors for the unlawful collection and sale of private data on more than 1.5 million Texan drivers.
According to a report from Reuters, General Motors is accused of installing technology on 14 million vehicles to siphon up driver data. The data was then allegedly sold to insurers without drivers’ consent, and can be used to determine if drivers engage in certain “bad” driving practices, such as hard acceleration or braking, sharp steering inputs, improper safety belt usage, and even driving late at night.
“Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law,” Texas Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “We will hold them accountable.”
Back in June, Paxton announced that he had opened an investigation into several car manufacturers over allegations of improper mass data collection pulled directly from vehicles, which was then sold to third parties.
“Companies are using invasive technology to violate the rights of our citizens in unthinkable ways. Millions of American drivers wanted to buy a car, not a comprehensive surveillance system that unlawfully records information about every drive they take and sells their data to any company willing to pay for it.”
According to Paxton, General Motors installed such technology in “most” 2015 model year or newer vehicles. The data was then sold to several different companies, at least two of which would use the data to create “Driving Scores” for drivers, which would then be sold to insurance companies.
Paxton continues by stating GM deceived its customers via enrollment in the OnStar Smart Driver program as part of the vehicle “onboarding” process, with customers told that failure to enroll in the program would result in deactivation of the vehicle’s safety features. However, Paxton alleges that enrollment unwittingly forced customers to agree to General Motors’ data collection practices. Check out our previous coverage to learn how to opt out of the Smart Driver program.
Late last month, two U.S. senators, Ron Wyden (OR-D) and Edward Markey (MA-D) urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate General Motors and several other automakers over problematic consumer data collection practices.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more General Motors legal news, General Motors business news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
It should be a nationwide class action against GM for all vehicles sold with the On-Star system. It was pushed by dealers as a “Great Safety Feature” that was just a spy program to make side sales for GM.
I understand that the cellular data can be recovered from an equipped GM car even if you didn’t sign up for On-Star.
GM should be forced to delete the onboard cell phone from the system at their expense.
A year after I bought my Sierra Denali I started getting emails from GM offering me the option of having my driving monitored so I could save money on my insurance, which I declined knowing that no good could ever come from a program like that. A few months later I needed to look something up about my truck at “My GMC” and while there I poking around on the site I was surprised to find that insurance monitoring was activated. This was done without my permission, and in fact was contrary what GM had originally claimed was an optional program.
Clearly GM wasn’t getting the participation in the program that they had expected and thus weren’t getting paid as much for the information as they had hoped, so I guess they decided to go ahead and sign people up against their wishes. I went and had a long and loud conversation with my dealer, a dealer I’ve been buying cars and trucks from for 40+ years. This was all especially annoying because when I ordered the truck I told them that I did not want the On Star activated, and someone went ahead and activated it anyway.
I hope GM gets hit really hard on this one!
Same thing happened to me…didn’t even know that this existed. Right after I bought my ’23 Sierra, my insurance rates started to go up. I was poking around in the My GMC app and came across the Smart Driver Option and was surprised that it was activated. When I opened it, it showed hard braking and the percentage of the time I drove without a seatbelt (only in my yard moving vehicles around). I know that if I join one of the many class action suits out there, I might get a $5 Burger King gift card (with $2.39 left on it) while the lawyers get rich, but I hope GM pays dearly for this.
In response GM should provide the entire internet history from all devices, and the entire purchase history from all cards of every GM Executive and Dealer Owner in the country to the public.
Tough one. Kettle calling pot black. Not happy with gm on this but paxton is as dirty as they come. He was impeached by a very republican house for helping a friend (who donated to his campaign) with some federal charges of fraud. It is ugly, uglier than what gm did and I am in no way whatsoever defending gm on this. Hoping some AG with cleaner hands from a different state does this instead. Paxton should have been removed but has too many friends in the tx senate so was given a pass ultimately on the impeachment. But paxton looks worse than menendez and he got what was coming to him. Maybe the feds will get paxton in the end for bridery. Fingers crossed.
i regularly go through the options to make sure everything is as i want it.
ps. my headlights come on very late (very low ambient light) – gm says thats how they are. oook.
pps. auto high beams are like a disco sometimes so i just switch it all in manual mode. why do i have auto lights again then
ppps. my auto wipers may or may not work. GM cannot replicate.
but them collecting your data, NEVER fails. funny isnt it.
priorities!
Are they also sueing Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, etc for stealing and selling your data?
Agreed, but I would like to see a strong precedent set somewhere so that the other companies will follow suit and not steal and sell personal data as standard operating procedure.
Okay, here is the other side of Onstar. I own a 2023 Bolt and I also requested to opt out of the monitoring program. My son, who started his own electrical business purchased a 2024 Silverado HD Zr2 about 9-10 months ago and definitely opted out of OnStar. Last week he was assisting residents of a particularly hard hit community that was hit with a tornado in northeast Ohio. He was traveling on a rural 2 lane road the kind that has those deep drainage ditches on each side. An oncoming newer Camry swerved into his lane hitting him head on and pushing him into the ditch. Less than a minute after the accident OnStar was trying to contact him with messages asking if he needed 911 assistance as airbag deployment was alerted at their center. He was okay with only some back discomfort and a bunch of road rash friction burns from the airbags. The guy in the Camry was fine as he was higher or drunk as a skunk. Matter-of-fact the ambulance crew that arrived on the scene had to contact the township sheriff’s office as the ass-wipe became combative and needed to be restrained before allowing to be transported to the hospital.
I still would not subscribe to the OnStar services but this emergency contact is kinda cool.
Matt loves Porsche, I have some familiarity with OnStar and the technology on the vehicles these days which I will share in a generalized condensed form.
OnStar was created for safety and communication purposes in the late ’90s. It is this feature and function that you describe that made it so very useful and popular. Since the original service began GM has been adding technology in the form of additional functionality that many people find very useful. The list is very, very long but some are: remote lock / unlock, remote horn honk to locate your vehicle and even a map to show you where your vehicle is. I could go on but these things are enable by communicating with the vehicle via the “OnStar module”. When Google maps come out businesses learned that people wanted to know where certain business are, how far away, and the best route to get there. This is a natural service for GM to provide their customers as well and by the way, if the data is collected it could be useful in so many ways economically speaking thus making the data worth paying for. Because people find the technology useful they unwittingly gave their personal data away and it was used in ways that it should not have been.
We find ourselves at a crossroads of sorts now, pun intended :-). Do we want continue to have our lives violated by data pirates for the sake convenience? Is their a way we can enjoy the technology without the continued personal intrusion? I think the answer is no to the first question and yes to the second.
I for one am tired of being approach by solicitors because they identified me base on a certain profile. I am also tired of my data being stolen by hackers from businesses that did not properly handle and secure my data, my property that they had obtain without my clear and concise authorization. I do not like my personal information being defined in such a way that I could characterized and “unsafe” or less safe than someone else. I did not agree to the parameters used to identify my driving style thus I should not be negatively impacted or positively impacted for that matter.
Our data should be our property and any use of it needs to be granted very clearly, concisely, and specifically to single parties who can not share it. If another party wishes your data, they need to be granted that access directly from the owner of the data.
Just for context, my home is my property, my vehicle is my property, my medical data is my property, and my personal data of all types is my property. My property is foundational to my life as I want to live it, without the third party intrusions and thefts by hacking.
Sorry for the long comment, getting off the stump now.
A person’s data needs to be legally deemed their personal property.