Please note that all submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here

General Motors data collection and sharing controversy: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Action Taskforce
Jump to navigation Jump to search
revised article with greater detail and organization
Tag: 2017 source edit
fixed references
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 1: Line 1:
General Motors (GM) has been collecting & monetizing driving data from millions of internet connected vehicles since 2015 which creates large privacy concerns. Through its OnStar system & vehicle telematics, GM gathers comprehensive data about drivers; including trip details, driving behavior, & real-time location information.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> While marketed to drivers as features for safety & convenience, these data collection practices have faced legal and regulatory scrutiny for potentially deceptive practices and inadequate disclosure.<ref name="nytimes" />
General Motors (GM) has been collecting & monetizing driving data from millions of internet connected vehicles since 2015 which creates large privacy concerns. Through its OnStar system & vehicle telematics, GM gathers comprehensive data about drivers; including trip details, driving behavior, & real-time location information.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref> While marketed to drivers as features for safety & convenience, these data collection practices have faced legal and regulatory scrutiny for potentially deceptive practices and inadequate disclosure.<ref name="nytimes">{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref>
 
 
GM has shared driving data from over 14 million vehicles (including 1.8 million in Texas alone) with commercial data brokers like LexisNexis & Verisk, who analyze it to create "driving scores" that are sold to insurance companies.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref> These scores have reportedly led to increased insurance premiums and coverage denials for consumers who were unaware their data was being collected and sold.<ref name="nytimes">{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref> Additionally, investigations have revealed that GM shares customer location data with law enforcement through subpoenas rather than requiring warrants, a practice that contradicts the company's public privacy commitments.<ref name="wydenletter1">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Signed_wyden_markey_letter_to_ftc_with_attachmentpdf.pdf1 |title=Signed Wyden-Markey Letter to FTC with Attachment |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>
 
The company's data collection practices have attracted attention from federal legislators, state attorneys general, & privacy advocates, who argue that GM failed to obtain informed consent from consumers & used deceptive techniques to enroll drivers in data collection programs without their informed consent.<ref name="wydenletter2">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Wyden-markey_auto_privacy_letter_to_ftc.pdf |title=Wyden-Markey Auto Privacy Letter to FTC |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref> This article examines GM's data collection and sharing practices, their impact on consumers, and the resulting legal and regulatory challenges, as well as the harm done by the [[EULA roofie]].


GM has shared driving data from over 14 million vehicles (including 1.8 million in Texas alone) with commercial data brokers like LexisNexis & Verisk, who analyze it to create "driving scores" that are sold to insurance companies.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> These scores have reportedly led to increased insurance premiums and coverage denials for consumers who were unaware their data was being collected and sold.<ref name="nytimes" /> Additionally, investigations have revealed that GM shares customer location data with law enforcement through subpoenas rather than requiring warrants, a practice that contradicts the company's public privacy commitments.<ref name="wydenletter1" />


The company's data collection practices have attracted attention from federal legislators, state attorneys general, & privacy advocates, who argue that GM failed to obtain informed consent from consumers & used deceptive techniques to enroll drivers in data collection programs without their informed consent.<ref name="wydenletter2" /> This article examines GM's data collection and sharing practices, their impact on consumers, and the resulting legal and regulatory challenges, as well as the harm done by the [[EULA roofie]].


== Background ==
== Background ==
Since 2015, General Motors has installed technology in its vehicles that collects, records, and transmits highly specific "Driving Data" about vehicle usage.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> While marketed to consumers as improving vehicle safety and functionality, these internet-connected systems allow the manufacturer unprecedented surveillance of driver behavior, & the ability to share that surveillance capabilities to any company that will pay for it. When consumers purchase a GM vehicle, their primary concern is typically getting from Point A to Point B. However, investigations have shown that these purchases unwittingly enrolled many drivers into a data collection system with far-reaching consequences.<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
Since 2015, General Motors has installed technology in its vehicles that collects, records, and transmits highly specific "Driving Data" about vehicle usage.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref> While marketed to consumers as improving vehicle safety and functionality, these internet-connected systems allow the manufacturer unprecedented surveillance of driver behavior, & the ability to share that surveillance capabilities to any company that will pay for it. When consumers purchase a GM vehicle, their primary concern is typically getting from Point A to Point B. However, investigations have shown that these purchases unwittingly enrolled many drivers into a data collection system with far-reaching consequences.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


=== Evolution of Data Collection ===
=== Evolution of Data Collection ===
The practice began in 2005 when GM partnered with insurance carriers to provide usage-based insurance through devices customers would voluntarily install. As technology advanced, separate monitoring devices became unnecessary - GM began manufacturing vehicles with built-in telematics systems that could directly obtain the same data.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> The OnStar system, installed in most GM vehicles since 2015, consists of both hardware (cameras, sensors, speakers) and software components that enable comprehensive data collection.<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
The practice began in 2005 when GM partnered with insurance carriers to provide usage-based insurance through devices customers would voluntarily install. As technology advanced, separate monitoring devices became unnecessary - GM began manufacturing vehicles with built-in telematics systems that could directly obtain the same data.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref> The OnStar system, installed in most GM vehicles since 2015, consists of both hardware (cameras, sensors, speakers) and software components that enable comprehensive data collection.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


=== Investigations & Oversight ===
=== Investigations & Oversight ===
Several major investigations have exposed the scope of GM's data practices:
Several major investigations have exposed the scope of GM's data practices:


* '''NY Times Investigation''': In March 2024, reporting revealed how GM's OnStar Smart Driver program collected and shared driving data with data brokers like LexisNexis and Verisk. The investigation found many cases where drivers faced insurance premium rate hikes based on this data without their knowledge. In one case, a careful driver with no accidents saw his insurance go up 21% due to data in his LexisNexis report, which contained over 130 pages detailing six months of driving behavior.<ref name="nytimes" />
* '''NY Times Investigation''': In March 2024, reporting revealed how GM's OnStar Smart Driver program collected and shared driving data with data brokers like LexisNexis and Verisk. The investigation found many cases where drivers faced insurance premium rate hikes based on this data without their knowledge. In one case, a careful driver with no accidents saw his insurance go up 21% due to data in his LexisNexis report, which contained over 130 pages detailing six months of driving behavior.{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref>


* '''Legislative Action''': Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey requested FTC investigation into automakers' deceptive practices, particularly focusing on GM's use of "dark patterns" and misleading interfaces to obtain nominal consent for data collection; an example of the ever-prevalent [[EULA roofie]].<ref name="wydenletter1" /><ref name="wydenletter2" /> Their investigation found that GM was selling data for pennies per vehicle - Honda received just 26 cents per car for data sold to Verisk, while Hyundai got 61 cents.<ref name="wydenletter2" />
* '''Legislative Action''': Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey requested FTC investigation into automakers' deceptive practices, particularly focusing on GM's use of "dark patterns" and misleading interfaces to obtain nominal consent for data collection; an example of the ever-prevalent [[EULA roofie]].<ref name="wydenletter1">Wyden, Ron and Markey, Edward. [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Signed_wyden_markey_letter_to_ftc_with_attachmentpdf.pdf1 Signed Wyden-Markey Letter to FTC with Attachment].</ref><ref name="wydenletter2">Wyden, Ron and Markey, Edward. [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Wyden-markey_auto_privacy_letter_to_ftc.pdf Wyden-Markey Auto Privacy Letter to FTC].</ref> Their investigation found that GM was selling data for pennies per vehicle - Honda received just 26 cents per car for data sold to Verisk, while Hyundai got 61 cents.<ref name="wydenletter2" />


* '''Texas Lawsuit''': In August 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed suit against GM and OnStar LLC for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit revealed that GM had collected data from over 14 million vehicles nationally and 1.8 million in Texas alone, while maintaining a network of over 300 dealerships that were incentivized to enroll customers in data collection programs through commissions.<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
* '''Texas Lawsuit''': In August 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed suit against GM and OnStar LLC for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit revealed that GM had collected data from over 14 million vehicles nationally and 1.8 million in Texas alone, while maintaining a network of over 300 dealerships that were incentivized to enroll customers in data collection programs through commissions.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


The scope of data collection expanded considerably in recent years. Beyond standard vehicle diagnostics, GM now collects detailed behavioral data including driving speed, acceleration patterns, braking habits, seatbelt usage, & even radio listening habits - information that has proven valuable to insurers, marketers, & other commercial entities.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /><ref name="nytimes" />
The scope of data collection expanded considerably in recent years. Beyond standard vehicle diagnostics, GM now collects detailed behavioral data including driving speed, acceleration patterns, braking habits, seatbelt usage, & even radio listening habits - information that has proven valuable to insurers, marketers, & other commercial entities.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref>


== Data Collection Practices ==
== Data Collection Practices ==
Line 28: Line 31:
* '''Vehicle Operation''': Current speed, acceleration patterns, braking power, & seatbelt status
* '''Vehicle Operation''': Current speed, acceleration patterns, braking power, & seatbelt status
* '''Technical Data''': Including synthetic keys, trip IDs, GPS coordinates, engine diagnostics, & fuel usage
* '''Technical Data''': Including synthetic keys, trip IDs, GPS coordinates, engine diagnostics, & fuel usage
* '''Additional Metrics''': Vehicle ignition status, odometer readings, & even radio listening patterns<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
* '''Additional Metrics''': Vehicle ignition status, odometer readings, & even radio listening patterns<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


The system automatically logs events deemed "bad driving behavior," including late-night driving, hard braking, sharp turns, and speeds over 80 miles per hour.<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
The system automatically logs events deemed "bad driving behavior," including late-night driving, hard braking, sharp turns, and speeds over 80 miles per hour.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


=== Data Monetization ===
=== Data Monetization ===
Line 37: Line 40:
# '''Direct Sales''': Between 2015-2024, GM sold data to Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, receiving multi-million dollar lump sum payments
# '''Direct Sales''': Between 2015-2024, GM sold data to Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, receiving multi-million dollar lump sum payments
# '''Ongoing Revenue''': The company earns "royalty payments" from data brokers based on subsequent license sales to insurers
# '''Ongoing Revenue''': The company earns "royalty payments" from data brokers based on subsequent license sales to insurers
# '''Volume Incentives''': GM receives guaranteed annual payments when providing data from a threshold number of vehicles<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
# '''Volume Incentives''': GM receives guaranteed annual payments when providing data from a threshold number of vehicles<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


=== Third-Party Sharing ===
=== Third-Party Sharing ===
GM's data sharing network includes:
GM's data sharing network includes:


* '''Data Brokers''': Companies like Verisk and LexisNexis compile "telematics exchanges" containing data from over 16 million customers' vehicles<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
* '''Data Brokers''': Companies like Verisk and LexisNexis compile "telematics exchanges" containing data from over 16 million customers' vehicles<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>
* '''Insurance Companies''': At least eight different insurers accessed one customer's data through LexisNexis in a single month<ref name="nytimes" />
* '''Insurance Companies''': At least eight different insurers accessed one customer's data through LexisNexis in a single month{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref>
<big>* '''Law Enforcement''': Unlike Honda, Ford, Tesla, & Stellantis, GM provides location data without requiring a warrant<ref name="wydenletter1" /></big>
<big>* '''Law Enforcement''': Unlike Honda, Ford, Tesla, & Stellantis, GM provides location data without requiring a warrant<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Signed_wyden_markey_letter_to_ftc_with_attachmentpdf.pdf1 |title=Wyden and Markey Letter to FTC |access-date=2025-01-19}}</ref></big>
* '''Other Partners''': GM shared location data with an unnamed British data broker (likely Wejo) until May 2023, then began sharing with another undisclosed company<ref name="wydenletter2" />
* '''Other Partners''': GM shared location data with an unnamed British data broker (likely Wejo) until May 2023, then began sharing with another undisclosed company<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Wyden-markey_auto_privacy_letter_to_ftc.pdf |title=Wyden-Markey Auto Privacy Letter to FTC |access-date=2025-01-19}}</ref>
 


== Consumer Impact ==
== Consumer Impact ==
Line 53: Line 57:
* '''Bundled Consent''': The OnStar "onboarding" process combines data sharing acceptance with safety features & theft alerts
* '''Bundled Consent''': The OnStar "onboarding" process combines data sharing acceptance with safety features & theft alerts
* '''Overwhelming Information''': Customers must navigate over fifty pages of disclosures about OnStar products during vehicle purchase
* '''Overwhelming Information''': Customers must navigate over fifty pages of disclosures about OnStar products during vehicle purchase
* '''Hidden Terms''': Data sharing agreements are buried in complex privacy policies that don't explicitly mention data sales<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
* '''Hidden Terms''': Data sharing agreements are buried in complex privacy policies that don't explicitly mention data sales<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


=== Financial Consequences ===
=== Financial Consequences ===
Line 60: Line 64:
* '''Insurance Increases''': Some drivers saw premiums rise by 21% based on collected data
* '''Insurance Increases''': Some drivers saw premiums rise by 21% based on collected data
* '''Coverage Denials''': At least one Cadillac owner was denied coverage by seven different insurance companies due to their driving data
* '''Coverage Denials''': At least one Cadillac owner was denied coverage by seven different insurance companies due to their driving data
* '''No Notice''': Only Tesla currently informs customers when their data is shared with third parties<ref name="wydenletter2" /><ref name="nytimes" />
* '''No Notice''': Only Tesla currently informs customers when their data is shared with third parties<ref name="wydenletter2" />{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |title=Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance |publisher=The New York Times |date=2024-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html |archive-date=2024-03-11 }}</ref>


=== Privacy Issues ===
=== Privacy Issues ===
Line 67: Line 71:
* '''Mandatory Sharing''': Internet-connected features can't be used without accepting some level of data collection
* '''Mandatory Sharing''': Internet-connected features can't be used without accepting some level of data collection
* '''Long Retention''': GM stores detailed driving records for extended periods - far longer than competitors like Tesla and Mercedes-Benz who limit data retention
* '''Long Retention''': GM stores detailed driving records for extended periods - far longer than competitors like Tesla and Mercedes-Benz who limit data retention
* '''Limited Control''': Customers have no meaningful way to limit data sharing while maintaining vehicle connectivity<ref name="wydenletter2" />
* '''Limited Control''': Customers have no meaningful way to limit data sharing while maintaining vehicle connectivity.<ref name="wydenletter2">{{cite web |title=Wyden-Markey Auto Privacy Letter to FTC |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:Wyden-markey_auto_privacy_letter_to_ftc.pdf |access-date=2025-01-19}}</ref>


== Legal Challenges ==
== Legal Challenges ==
Line 75: Line 79:
* Used deceptive enrollment practices through dealership incentive programs
* Used deceptive enrollment practices through dealership incentive programs
* Misrepresented how customer data would be used and shared
* Misrepresented how customer data would be used and shared
* Created an "all-seeing surveillance system" that monetized private consumer behavior<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
* Created an "all-seeing surveillance system" that monetized private consumer behavior<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>


The suit seeks civil penalties and restitution for affected consumers, as well as requirements for GM to delete collected data and implement clear opt-out mechanisms.<ref name="texaslawsuit" />
The suit seeks civil penalties and restitution for affected consumers, as well as requirements for GM to delete collected data and implement clear opt-out mechanisms.<ref name="texaslawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf |title=General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped) |publisher=Rossmann Group Wiki}}</ref>
== See Also ==
== See Also ==
* [[Automotive data privacy]]
* [[Automotive data privacy]]

Revision as of 09:00, 19 January 2025

General Motors (GM) has been collecting & monetizing driving data from millions of internet connected vehicles since 2015 which creates large privacy concerns. Through its OnStar system & vehicle telematics, GM gathers comprehensive data about drivers; including trip details, driving behavior, & real-time location information.[1] While marketed to drivers as features for safety & convenience, these data collection practices have faced legal and regulatory scrutiny for potentially deceptive practices and inadequate disclosure.[2]


GM has shared driving data from over 14 million vehicles (including 1.8 million in Texas alone) with commercial data brokers like LexisNexis & Verisk, who analyze it to create "driving scores" that are sold to insurance companies.[1] These scores have reportedly led to increased insurance premiums and coverage denials for consumers who were unaware their data was being collected and sold.[2] Additionally, investigations have revealed that GM shares customer location data with law enforcement through subpoenas rather than requiring warrants, a practice that contradicts the company's public privacy commitments.[3]

The company's data collection practices have attracted attention from federal legislators, state attorneys general, & privacy advocates, who argue that GM failed to obtain informed consent from consumers & used deceptive techniques to enroll drivers in data collection programs without their informed consent.[4] This article examines GM's data collection and sharing practices, their impact on consumers, and the resulting legal and regulatory challenges, as well as the harm done by the EULA roofie.


Background

Since 2015, General Motors has installed technology in its vehicles that collects, records, and transmits highly specific "Driving Data" about vehicle usage.[1] While marketed to consumers as improving vehicle safety and functionality, these internet-connected systems allow the manufacturer unprecedented surveillance of driver behavior, & the ability to share that surveillance capabilities to any company that will pay for it. When consumers purchase a GM vehicle, their primary concern is typically getting from Point A to Point B. However, investigations have shown that these purchases unwittingly enrolled many drivers into a data collection system with far-reaching consequences.[1]

Evolution of Data Collection

The practice began in 2005 when GM partnered with insurance carriers to provide usage-based insurance through devices customers would voluntarily install. As technology advanced, separate monitoring devices became unnecessary - GM began manufacturing vehicles with built-in telematics systems that could directly obtain the same data.[1] The OnStar system, installed in most GM vehicles since 2015, consists of both hardware (cameras, sensors, speakers) and software components that enable comprehensive data collection.[1]

Investigations & Oversight

Several major investigations have exposed the scope of GM's data practices:

  • NY Times Investigation: In March 2024, reporting revealed how GM's OnStar Smart Driver program collected and shared driving data with data brokers like LexisNexis and Verisk. The investigation found many cases where drivers faced insurance premium rate hikes based on this data without their knowledge. In one case, a careful driver with no accidents saw his insurance go up 21% due to data in his LexisNexis report, which contained over 130 pages detailing six months of driving behavior.Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".</ref>
  • Legislative Action: Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey requested FTC investigation into automakers' deceptive practices, particularly focusing on GM's use of "dark patterns" and misleading interfaces to obtain nominal consent for data collection; an example of the ever-prevalent EULA roofie.[3][4] Their investigation found that GM was selling data for pennies per vehicle - Honda received just 26 cents per car for data sold to Verisk, while Hyundai got 61 cents.[4]
  • Texas Lawsuit: In August 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed suit against GM and OnStar LLC for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit revealed that GM had collected data from over 14 million vehicles nationally and 1.8 million in Texas alone, while maintaining a network of over 300 dealerships that were incentivized to enroll customers in data collection programs through commissions.[1]

The scope of data collection expanded considerably in recent years. Beyond standard vehicle diagnostics, GM now collects detailed behavioral data including driving speed, acceleration patterns, braking habits, seatbelt usage, & even radio listening habits - information that has proven valuable to insurers, marketers, & other commercial entities.[1]Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".</ref>

Data Collection Practices

GM's OnStar and vehicle telematics systems collect a large array of data points, including(but not limited to):

  • Trip Information: Precise date, start time, end time, distance driven, & route data for each journey
  • Vehicle Operation: Current speed, acceleration patterns, braking power, & seatbelt status
  • Technical Data: Including synthetic keys, trip IDs, GPS coordinates, engine diagnostics, & fuel usage
  • Additional Metrics: Vehicle ignition status, odometer readings, & even radio listening patterns[1]

The system automatically logs events deemed "bad driving behavior," including late-night driving, hard braking, sharp turns, and speeds over 80 miles per hour.[1]

Data Monetization

GM has developed multiple revenue streams from consumer data:

  1. Direct Sales: Between 2015-2024, GM sold data to Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, receiving multi-million dollar lump sum payments
  2. Ongoing Revenue: The company earns "royalty payments" from data brokers based on subsequent license sales to insurers
  3. Volume Incentives: GM receives guaranteed annual payments when providing data from a threshold number of vehicles[1]

Third-Party Sharing

GM's data sharing network includes:

  • Data Brokers: Companies like Verisk and LexisNexis compile "telematics exchanges" containing data from over 16 million customers' vehicles[1]
  • Insurance Companies: At least eight different insurers accessed one customer's data through LexisNexis in a single monthScript error: No such module "citation/CS1".</ref>

* Law Enforcement: Unlike Honda, Ford, Tesla, & Stellantis, GM provides location data without requiring a warrant[5]

  • Other Partners: GM shared location data with an unnamed British data broker (likely Wejo) until May 2023, then began sharing with another undisclosed company[6]


Consumer Impact

Deceptive Practices

GM uses several EULA roofying techniques to obscure its data collection:

  • Bundled Consent: The OnStar "onboarding" process combines data sharing acceptance with safety features & theft alerts
  • Overwhelming Information: Customers must navigate over fifty pages of disclosures about OnStar products during vehicle purchase
  • Hidden Terms: Data sharing agreements are buried in complex privacy policies that don't explicitly mention data sales[1]

Financial Consequences

The damage to consumers is clear:

  • Insurance Increases: Some drivers saw premiums rise by 21% based on collected data
  • Coverage Denials: At least one Cadillac owner was denied coverage by seven different insurance companies due to their driving data
  • No Notice: Only Tesla currently informs customers when their data is shared with third parties[4]Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".</ref>

Privacy Issues

GM's practices raise several privacy concerns:

  • Mandatory Sharing: Internet-connected features can't be used without accepting some level of data collection
  • Long Retention: GM stores detailed driving records for extended periods - far longer than competitors like Tesla and Mercedes-Benz who limit data retention
  • Limited Control: Customers have no meaningful way to limit data sharing while maintaining vehicle connectivity.[4]

Legal Challenges

The Texas Attorney General's lawsuit specifically alleges that GM:

  • Failed to obtain informed consent before collecting and selling driving data
  • Used deceptive enrollment practices through dealership incentive programs
  • Misrepresented how customer data would be used and shared
  • Created an "all-seeing surveillance system" that monetized private consumer behavior[1]

The suit seeks civil penalties and restitution for affected consumers, as well as requirements for GM to delete collected data and implement clear opt-out mechanisms.[1]

See Also

References

  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. 2.0 2.1 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. 3.0 3.1 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "wydenletter1" defined multiple times with different content
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "wydenletter2" defined multiple times with different content
  5. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".