4 Friday Class Actions Challenge Drivers' Privacy Violations by GM, OnStar and Data Firms

Joseph Davids and Thomas Fuhrer allege GM has been selling data about millions of customers’ driving data without informing the affected drivers. GM’s marketing says OnStar technology provides “emergency services, promotes safe driving, and allows for over-the-air emergency software updates,” but it doesn’t say OnStar also collects “a vast amount of driving data, from trip reports to ‘hard braking’ events," alleged the complaint (docket 1:24-cv-03203), filed in U.S. District Court for New York in Manhattan.

Davids, a New York resident, bought a 2024 Cadillac XT6 this year and leased a 2021 XT5 from July 2021 until February 2024. Though Davids believes his vehicles had active OnStar subscriptions, he had no knowledge of agreeing to the sharing and use of his driving data, but his car insurance premiums rose following his use of OnStar, it said.

In the same complaint, North Carolina resident Fuhrer understood that OnStar service started when he bought a Chevrolet Cruze in 2019 and a Chevrolet Colorado in 2022, but he never paid for OnStar services, it said. The only OnStar services Fuhrer believes he received are the free monthly diagnostic reports for the vehicles, it said, but his LexisNexis report listed 662 driving incidents from October 2023 to March this year. Fuhrer believes his driving data was shared with insurance companies, including his car insurance provider, “because his rate increased from $1370.77 to $1514.85 without other justification.”

Davids and Fuhrer’s class action claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, New York General Business Law and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. They seek actual, statutory and punitive damages; an order enjoining GM and OnStar from sharing class members’ driving information with Verisk and LexisNexis; and an order requiring the data analytics companies to delete class members’ driving data.

OnStar launched the OnStar Smart Driver feature in 2016 to monitor and score driver behavior, saying the feature would help drivers “maximize their vehicle’s performance and reduce wear and tear on the vehicle,” the complaint noted. GM also told customers the service would provide insights on how they could become safer drivers.

But a March New York Times article reported that GM was selling the driving data collected through OnStar to “two data brokers that cater to the auto insurance industry,” LexisNexis and Verisk. And it wasn’t until then that GM and OnStar “admitted to the egregious data collecting and selling practice, stating, 'As of March 20, 2024, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk,'" said a complaint (docket 5:24-cv-02540) filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.

In that lawsuit, Donald Smith of Palo Alto, California, said he leased and drove a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt 2021-2024. Neither GM nor OnStar informed him that use of the My Chevrolet app would result in the collection of his personal driver data or that the data would be sold to third parties for profit, the complaint said. Upon information and belief, Smith said his car insurance company accessed his LexisNexis report, and an increase in his insurance premiums was a “direct and proximate result” of the defendants’ collection and sale of his personal driving behavior.

Smith alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, plus the state’s constitutional right to privacy. He requests actual, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages; plus restitution and disgorgement.

David Lima, an Indiana resident, bought a 2019 Corvette in 2020 and understood he would receive OnStar service for one year, said his complaint (docket 2:24-cv-11119) filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. Lima didn’t knowingly use the service, nor did he renew it, but his LexisNexis consumer report showed GM shared his driving data through March of this year. He believes LexisNexis and Verisk shared his driving data with insurance companies, including his provider, since his insurance rate went up from $720 to $820.

GM and OnStar “actively concealed” their collection and sale of drivers’ data by misleading them about the purpose and function of the OnStar and Smart Driver services, said Lima’s complaint. They “kept their behavior secret because they understood that drivers would not knowingly consent to this sale and use of their data,” it said. Any applicable statute of limitations has been either “tolled or accrued” in March, when the Times article was published, it said. The defendants’ “overt acts” began a new statute of limitations “because those acts advanced the unfair objectives of the scheme,” it said.

Lima claims violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act vs. LexisNexis and Verisk and the Indiana Consumer Protection Act vs. all defendants, plus unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. He seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages; an order enjoining GM and OnStar from sharing his and the class’ driving information with Verisk and LexisNexis; and an order requiring the data analytics companies to delete drivers’ data.

In the fourth class action, Michael Behm of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, said he didn’t sign up for OnStar service at the time of purchase and wasn’t notified GM would collect or sell his telematics data through OnStar. The plaintiff bought a 2022 Cadillac Escalade in May 2022, and he attributes an increased auto insurance premium to GM and OnStar’s sharing of data to third parties, said Behm's complaint (docket 0:24-cv-01517) filed in U.S. District Court for Minnesota. That data includes a driver’s average speed, percentage of time he exceeds 80 miles per hour, the frequency and intensity of acceleration and braking, high speeds, and late night driving, along with vehicle identification numbers and GPS location data, it said.

With the data it receives from vehicles, mobile applications, and third-party services, Lexis/Nexis generates “scores and attributes that are easily ingested into insurance carrier workflows to influence their value chain,” said the complaint, citing company documents. Lexis/Nexis receives drivers’ data, without their consent, “repackages it, and sells it to auto insurance companies, who then, based on the data, increase the auto insurance premiums or even deny coverage altogether,” said the complaint. Lexis knows or should have known that obtaining drivers’ telematics data and selling it to auto insurance companies without drivers’ consent “is unlawful, deceptive, unfair, wrongful conduct,” the complaint alleged.

Behm asserts claims of common law invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of Minnesota’s Unlawful Trade Practices, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices and Prevention of Consumer Fraud acts; and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He requests orders enjoining the defendants from continuing the unlawful practices alleged; requiring them to disgorge or return all monies obtained by unlawful means; and actual and statutory damages. The defendants didn't comment.