GM settlement leaves drivers without compensation for their data

General Motors will pay $220 million to settle allegations that it collected and sold customers’ driving data without their knowledge or consent. The settlement directs the money to 36 states and jurisdictions, not to the drivers whose information was involved. Some customers have said their insurance premiums rose after their driving records were shared.

The agreement, announced October 29, also requires GM to follow new privacy rules. The company must get customers’ clear consent before collecting or sharing driving information.

The data was gathered largely through GM’s OnStar Smart Driver program, which ran from 2016 to 2024. It included details such as trip times, speed, hard braking and acceleration. Data brokers made the information available to insurers, which could use it when assessing premiums.

Some customers may not have realized they were enrolled. Investigators found cases in which dealership employees allegedly accepted program terms for customers. GM’s OnStar app also incorrectly told more than 370,000 drivers they were not enrolled even as their data was being collected and sold.

Kenn Dahl, a Chevrolet Bolt owner, said he discovered that a data broker held a detailed record of his trips after his insurance costs increased by 21%.

How the data could generate revenue

A lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in August 2024 offers a look at GM’s arrangements with data companies. Texas did not join the $220 million settlement.

Under a 2015 agreement with Verisk Analytics, which provides data and risk assessments to insurers, GM received an initial payment worth millions of dollars for customer driving information. Verisk added the data to a database insurers could pay to access. When insurers bought licenses, Verisk paid GM royalties tied to the resulting revenue.

The Texas filing says GM also encouraged Verisk to seek data from other automakers, telecommunications companies and third parties. Verisk later made similar agreements with Honda in 2017 and Hyundai in 2018.

The information was not anonymous, according to the lawsuit. GM provided Verisk with details including names, home addresses and vehicle identification numbers, which could be linked to individual driving records. Insurers could then check a driver’s score when deciding whether to offer or renew coverage, or how much to charge.

A $70 million valuation for one year of records

GM had another data arrangement with Wejo, a British connected-car company. In a 2018 deal, GM paid $25 million for a 35% stake in Wejo and agreed to provide data from 2.6 million vehicles for that year. The Texas lawsuit valued those records at $70 million.

Wejo could license the information to companies outside the insurance business, subject to GM’s approval. The agreement set a minimum monthly licensing revenue target of $3 million, with 70% of that revenue going to GM. Wejo also agreed to reimburse GM if it fell short of the target. The relationship ended after Wejo declared bankruptcy in May 2023.

The information shared with Wejo went beyond driving behavior. Starting in December 2022, GM also provided details about radio use, including ignition times, AM/FM frequencies, station call signs, time zones and radio genres.

Scrutiny of other automakers

GM is not the only automaker facing questions about vehicle data. In April 2026, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen opened an investigation into Ford and Stellantis following reports that the companies collected and sold or licensed vehicle information to third parties, including data brokers and insurers.

That investigation is separate from the GM settlement, and the allegations against Ford and Stellantis have not been established as legal violations. Still, the broader concern is clear: modern cars can gather large amounts of information, which may then be analyzed, licensed or sold to businesses drivers may not know about.

If an insurer uses that information to raise a customer’s rates, the driver could end up paying more based on data they never knowingly agreed to share.

Drivers receive no direct payment

Under the settlement, GM must get affirmative consent before collecting or sharing driving and location information, limit its data collection and improve oversight of dealership enrollment practices.

GM did not admit wrongdoing. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel confirmed that the agreement provides no direct compensation to consumers. A separate private class-action lawsuit seeking monetary relief is still pending.

So the states receive the settlement money, and GM agrees to new rules, while drivers whose information may have affected their insurance bills receive nothing under this agreement.

Automakers should explain what they collect, who gets access to it and how the information is used. Insurers, too, should make clear when driving data influences a customer’s rates. And people should have a way to challenge inaccurate records before those records affect what they pay.

If companies can earn money from people’s driving habits, it seems fair to ask whether those people should share in the proceeds. At the very least, customers should be able to seek a remedy if their information was used to raise their premiums without their knowledge or consent.