Texas Sues GM for Collecting Driving Data without Consent

Texas is suing General Motors for collecting driver data without consent and then selling it to insurance companies:

From CNN:

In car models from 2015 and later, the Detroit-based car manufacturer allegedly used technology to “collect, record, analyze, and transmit highly detailed driving data about each time a driver used their vehicle,” according to the AG’s statement.

General Motors sold this information to several other companies, including to at least two companies for the purpose of generating “Driving Scores” about GM’s customers, the AG alleged. The suit said those two companies then sold these scores to insurance companies.

Insurance companies can use data to see how many times people exceeded a speed limit or obeyed other traffic laws. Some insurance firms ask customers if they want to voluntarily opt-in to such programs, promising lower rates for safer drivers.

But the attorney general’s office claimed GM “deceived” its Texan customers by encouraging them to enroll in programs such as OnStar Smart Driver. But by agreeing to join these programs, customers also unknowingly agreed to the collection and sale of their data, the attorney general’s office said.

Press release. Court filing. Slashdot thread.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on August 14, 2024 at 12:48 PM • 7 Comments

Comments

Alex Neff • August 14, 2024 1:36 PM

IANAL, but it sounds like the dealerships or end users are at fault.

Dealerships at times signed up for customers removing their ability to accept terms of service. Abstraction of sales process is one of the reasons automakers use dealerships.

End users are given the opportunity to read terms of service and in the filing the argument is given that the terms of service are too long and/or confusing for the average user. Until some kind of laws force companies to offer TDLRs for terms of service, I have a hard time faulting a company for their length (at someone who has had to work with lawyers to craft them).

Last, Telematics data is very valuable for safety usage. Sales to third parties, if denoted in the ToS agreements, is perfectly legal and is basically what half of the web has been monetized on. I’m not sure I fully agree with the lack of transparency, but wonder if this is more for show.

Not Really Anonymous • August 14, 2024 7:37 PM

It would help if people voted with their wallets. If people affect companies’ bottom lines, then they will change their behavior or pressure politicins to change the laws. Not enough people cared about TSA to get rid of them, so it isn’t likely that enough people will care about car telemetry to get that under owner control. Dealing with ALPR is a much harder problem since their is no way to apply financial pressure there. You need a lot more people to care to get the attention of politicians when there aren’t campaign contributions at stake.

Gert-Jan • August 15, 2024 6:58 AM

In the EU, as part of the GDPR regulation, if a company website wants to set “non-essential” cookies, they are required to aks for permission. And with a click of a button, the user can choose not to give this permission. It is not allowed to bundle this opt in with other stuff, and it requires an active opt in (a checkbox that is prechecked is not allowed, nor is it allowed to mandate opt-in).

To me it is clear that similar legislation in the US for collecting non essential privacy sensitive data would be a great idea.

Such legislation inverts the situtation. With legislation like that, if the company doesn’t provide a clear and concise goal why it wants to collection the data, many customers (including me) will simply default to not opting in.

JonKnowsNothing • August 15, 2024 11:16 AM

@Not Really Anonymous

re: Economic Pressure

Sometimes economic pressures do work but they most often have to be on a large scale. Blockades, Embargoes, Tariff Wars all are part of economic warfare policies by governments.

Governments, by their various sizes, are well aware of such actions and use counter measures to avoid the intended impacts. Food and resource quotas or limitations or alternate trading partners are developed.

The success of any large scale economic “siege” varies.

When compared to consumer or public actions, one of the considerations is the scale of action what will be the counter move. We don’t have to shop in XYZ store until or unless it is the only store in our area, or the government passes a law requiring people to shop in XYZ stores (all sorts of reasons will be given).

USA

We have a current hot-topic public disagreement over personal and private economic purchases. We may not really have to legal right to withhold funds. It’s an on going debate and raises many hackles with corresponding verbal vitriol.

  • Do you have the right to refuse to buy from from Store XYZ?
  • Do you have the right to refuse business from company XYZ?
  • Do you have the right to refuse investing in company XYZ?
  • Do you have the right to redirect your mutual fund investment away from company XYZ?
  • Do you have the right to know the list of companies your pension fund is investing in?

Maybe not, or at least not publicly and maybe not at all, given 3L LEA track-n-trace economic transactions.

There are some actions that have been highly successful

  • Montgomery, Alabama, USA bus boycott December 5, 1955 – December 20, 1956. … a political and social protest campaign against the policy of racial segregation on the public transit system of Montgomery, Alabama. It was a foundational event in the civil rights movement in the United States.

Others gavanaized the opposition

  • In 1841 Frederick Douglass and his friend James N. Buffum entered a train car reserved for white passengers in Lynn, Massachusetts [USA]…. led Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which granted equal rights to Black citizens in public accommodations. In 1883 the Supreme Court overturned this victory, declaring it unconstitutional.

===

ht tps://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

ht tps://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott#Previous_transport_and_bus_boycotts_in_the_United_States

ht tps://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

  • The bill was passed by the 43rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1875. The act was designed to “protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights”, providing for equal treatment in public accommodations and public transportation

  • The Supreme Court, in an 8–1 decision, declared sections of the act unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases on October 15, 1883.

ht tps://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases

Dan from Boston • August 15, 2024 1:56 PM

Ford is doing the same thing. You have to accept data sharing in order for any of their “connected” features to work (service notifications, software updates, roadside assistance, app features, etc.). And they continue to collect and share the data even if you opt out using the options on the vehicle’s Settings screens.

Not Really Anonymous • August 15, 2024 5:13 PM

Voting with your wallet is still possible with cars (at least in the US). I don’t believe that there are any normal new cars being sold without being connected (maybe the ones from Vietnam?), but there are plenty of used cars that are old enough not to be connected. I’m planning to repair my current car as long as I can and when it can’t be, I’m going to try to find another used car from before TPMS. Not buying new cars is probably less effective than buying new cars from a major supplier whose cars don’t have telemetry. But there is data on the number of licensed cars, so manufacturers can still tell if people are holding on to cars longer, even if the reason might not be as clear.

Leave a comment

Blog moderation policy

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.