GM’s $220 Million Driver Data Deal Puts Telematics Consent in Focus
GM will pay $220 million and limit its collection and sharing of driver data after claims tied to its Smart Driver program.
General Motors’ $220 million agreement puts a business question at the center of connected-car services: what can automakers do with driving data when customers enroll in programs designed to track their habits? The deal resolves claims brought by attorneys general from 35 states and the District of Columbia over GM’s Smart Driver program, which enrolled millions of drivers from 2016 until it ended in 2024.
The claims alleged that GM sold drivers’ behavior and location information to data brokers, which then sold it to insurers. Those insurers could use the data when setting rates, with some drivers facing increases. The agreement also requires GM to limit the driving data it collects and obtain drivers’ express consent before collecting or sharing it.
Consent and the path from car to insurer
Smart Driver was presented as a way for motorists to improve their driving safety. The claims contend that GM’s handling of the information did not match a promise that it would not sell drivers’ data without permission. Many participants also used OnStar, GM’s safety, navigation and diagnostic service, connecting the data issue to a broader set of connected-car features.
The route described in the claims has several steps: a vehicle records driving or location information, that information passes to a broker, and an insurer may use it in assessing a driver. Each handoff raises a different question for customers: what information is collected, who receives it, and whether the driver agreed to that use. The new consent requirement addresses collection and sharing, while the limit on data collection applies earlier in that chain.
That distinction matters because a customer’s decision to use a safety or navigation feature may not mean they expect driving records to reach an insurer. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield summarized that concern by saying, “People bought a car, not a tracking device.” His office and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown’s office led the group that brought the claims.
Telematics creates both value and exposure
Insurers including Allstate, Progressive and Berkshire Hathaway’s Geico use telematics to monitor driving habits. Insurers say the technology can reward safer driving with lower premiums. The same information, however, can affect how a customer is assessed; the claims against GM said some drivers’ rates increased after data reached insurers.
For insurers, driving records can add detail to the information used to evaluate risk. For automakers, connected services can support safety, navigation and diagnostics, while also creating a responsibility to explain data practices clearly. For drivers, the practical stakes include privacy and the possibility that information gathered through a vehicle service may influence insurance pricing. The agreement makes clear that consent and limits on collection are part of this business relationship, not simply technical details.
GM said the agreement reinforces steps it has taken to strengthen privacy. A company spokesperson said connected vehicle data can enable safer, more personalized experiences and that GM is committed to explaining what information it uses, how it protects that information and what choices customers have. The company’s description of those benefits sits alongside the claims about how Smart Driver data was handled.
Earlier actions provide context
The $220 million deal follows a separate agreement in May, when GM agreed to pay $12.75 million to resolve a California investigation into alleged sales of driver information to two data brokers. In January 2025, GM also agreed with the Federal Trade Commission not to disclose vehicle location and driver behavior information to consumer reporting agencies for five years. These actions address different aspects of GM’s data practices, with the latest agreement setting requirements around collection and consent.
The scale of Smart Driver’s enrollment—millions of drivers over eight years—shows why the outcome matters beyond the customers whose information was allegedly passed along. Automakers and insurers both rely on connected-car data for services and risk assessment, while drivers may have limited visibility into how information moves between companies. Clear consent at enrollment, meaningful limits on collection, and an understandable account of who receives the data will shape how customers judge these programs.
The agreement changes the terms GM must follow, but the larger commercial question remains: can connected-car services deliver useful safety and insurance features while giving drivers a clear choice over how their records are used? The answer will depend on how those choices are presented and how consistently the limits are applied across the data chain.
