GM, OnStar Sell Driver Behavior Data for Resale to Insurance Firms: Class Action

General Motors, OnStar and LexisNexis Risk Solutions secretly collect consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle computer systems and sell that data without consumers' full notice, knowledge or consent, alleged a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00524) in U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Scranton.

Modern vehicles integrate software that captures metrics about a vehicle’s condition and performance, including fuel levels and distances traveled, but they also capture “less overt metrics” about drivers’ own behavior, the complaint said. Data such as average speed, the percentage of time one drives at speeds over 80 miles per hour, the frequency and intensity of acceleration and braking, and late-night driving are being “digitally recorded, stored and viewed” through vehicle software apps, it said.

GM and its OnStar affiliate install tracking software that's billed as a way to “enhance the driving experience,” while the defendants “are surreptitiously recording a plethora of driver-behavior metrics,” the complaint said. The companies furnish driver’s behavior data to credit agencies or data aggregation companies such as LexisNexis Risk Solutions without drivers’ knowledge, it said, and those companies sell the data to insurance companies that use the data “to increase quotes and premiums” for customers’ drivers’ insurance.

Jonathan DiNardo, a Pennsylvania resident, drives a 2018 Equinox that’s capable of supporting driver tracking software or apps operated and maintained by GM or OnStar, said the complaint. “Every entity in this clandestine series of transactions is profiting from the sale of drivers’ data, while drivers themselves not only do not see a penny from the sale of their own data, but often see their insurance quotes or premiums inexplicably go up,” the complaint said.

Though GM claims it doesn’t enroll drivers in OnStar, and doesn’t collect driving behavior data without consent, “that does not appear to be the case,” said the complaint: “It appears GM and OnStar track, store and share driver behavior data" whether a driver "consents or not,” it said. The defendants' processes also don’t “adequately apprise” drivers that their behavior behind the wheel will be collected, furnished or sold to third parties, without compensation to drivers, it said.

Nor does GM or OnStar let drivers know their data will be sold to third parties that “resell the data” to insurance companies, “resulting in higher insurance quotes or premiums,” the complaint said.Instead, they “misleadingly represent that any data collected by the ‘optional’ service" is to help drivers “maximize their vehicle’s overall performance, reduce vehicle wear and tear and encourage safe driving,” it said.

GM’s and OnStar’s “concealment runs counter to its purported use of appropriate safeguards to protect drivers’ data,” the complaint said. The defendants only recently admitted for the first time, on March 20, that OnStar Smart Driver customer data is “no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk,” it said, citing FAQs on the OnStar website.

DiNardo and class members suffered actual and future harm as a result of GM and OnStar’s “illicit activities,” including invasion of their privacy, loss of control over their data, sale of their data without compensation and “adverse credit reporting and impaired credit scores,” the complaint said.

In addition to FCRA violations, DiNardo asserts violation of Pennsylvania's and other states’ consumer protection laws and alleges tortious interference, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. He requests an award for preliminary or final injunctive relief vs. each defendant; statutory and exemplary or punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

DiNardo also seeks restitution including the full amounts paid for GM vehicles, the price differential for GM vehicles with and without tracking software, the value of each class member's driving behavior data, and each defendant’s “ill-gotten gains.” The defendants didn't comment Thursday.