GM spying on customers increasing and selling your info

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Be careful what you say in your vehicle as someone could be recording it

Vehicles are getting an “F” in data privacy.
Most major manufacturers admit they are selling your personal information,
a new study finds, with half also saying they would share it with the government or law enforcement without a court order.

The proliferation of sensors in automobiles from telematics to fully digitized control consoles has made them prodigious data-collection hubs.
But drivers are given little or no control over the personal data their vehicles collect, researchers for the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation said Wednesday in their latest “Privacy Not Included” survey Security standards are also vague, a big concern given automakers’ track record of susceptibility to hacking.

“Cars seem to have really flown under the privacy radar, and I’m really hoping that we can help remedy that because they are truly awful,” said Jen Caltrider, the study’s research lead.
Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward.”

Unless they opt for a used, pre-digital model, car buyers “just don’t have a lot of options,” Caltrider said.
Cars scored worst for privacy among more than a dozen product categories including fitness trackers, reproductive-health apps, smart speakers and other connected home appliances that Mozilla has studied since 2017.

Not one of the 25 car brands whose privacy notices were reviewed chosen for their popularity in Europe and North America met the minimum privacy standards of Mozilla, which promotes open-source, public interest technologies and maintains the Firefox browser.
By contrast, 37% of the mental health apps to non-profit reviewed this year did.

Nineteen automakers say they can & will sell your personal data, their notices reveal.
Half will share your information with government or law enforcement in response to a “request” as opposed to requiring a court order.
Only two Renault and Dacia, which are not sold in North America, offer drivers the option to have their data deleted.

Increasingly, most cars are wiretaps on wheels,” said Albert Fox Cahn,
a technology and human rights fellow at Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
“The electronics that drivers pay more and more money to install are collecting more and more data on them and their passengers."

“There is something uniquely invasive about transforming the privacy of one’s car into a corporate surveillance space,” he added.
A trade group representing the makers of most cars and light trucks sold in the U.S., the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, took issue with that characterization.
In a letter sent Tuesday to U.S. House and Senate leadership, it said it shares “the goal of protecting the privacy of consumers.”
It called for a federal privacy law, saying a “patchwork of state privacy laws creates confusion among consumers about their privacy rights and makes compliance unnecessarily difficult.”
The absence of such a law lets connected devices and smartphones amass data for tailored ad targeting and other marketing, while also raising the odds of massive information theft through cybersecurity breaches.

The Associated Press asked the Alliance, which has resisted efforts to provide car owners and independent repair shops with access to onboard data, if it supports allowing car buyers to automatically opt out of data collection and granting them the option of having collected data deleted. Spokesman Brian Weiss said that for safety reasons the group “has concerns” about letting customers completely opt out but does endorse giving them greater control over how the data is used in marketing and by third parties.

In a 2020 Pew Research survey, 52% of Americans said they had opted against using a product or service because they were worried about the amount of personal information it would collect about them.
On security, Mozilla's minimum standards include encrypting all personal information on a car.
The researchers said most car brands ignored their emailed questions on the matter, those that did offer partial, unsatisfactory responses.

Japan-based Nissan astounded researchers with the level of honesty and detailed breakdowns of data collection its privacy notice provides, a stark contrast with Big Tech companies such as Facebook or Google.
Sensitive personal information” collected includes driver's license numbers, immigration status, race, sexual orientation and health diagnoses.

Further, Nissan says it can share “inferences” drawn from the data to create profiles "reflecting the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes.”


It was among six car companies that said they could collect “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics," the researchers found.
Nissan also said it collected information on “sexual activity." It didn't explain how.
The all-electric Tesla brand scored high on Mozilla’s “creepiness” index.
If an owner opts out of data collection, Tesla’s privacy notice says the company may not be able to notify drivers “in real time” of issues that could result in “reduced functionality, serious damage, or inoperability.”

Neither Nissan nor Tesla immediately responded to questions about their practices.
Mozilla's Caltrider credited laws like the 27-nation European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and California's Consumer Privacy Act for compelling carmakers to provide existing data collection information.
It's a start, she said, by raising awareness among consumers, just as occurred in the 2010s when a consumer backlash prompted TV makers to offer more alternatives to surveillance-heavy connected displays.
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Maybe James has got the right idea if he is going to daily his C3. None of that spyware rubbish in them.
Certainly not in the car itself.......if he's carrying a mobile phone? - and the CCTT camera's on many street corners, businesses, shop fronts plus private, commericial, local authority, and the very worst, London's LEZ, Congestion Charge, ULEZ TFL network continually being expanded........not forgetting now that TFL are employing vans with cameras to catch people. Chopping down or immobilising the very latest ULEZ cameras is huge 'business' right now and supported my many people!
 
Last edited:

CaptainK

CCCUK Member
Certainly not in the car itself.......if he's carrying a mobile phone? - and the CCTT camera's on many street corners, businesses, shop fronts plus private, commericial, local authority, and the very worst, London's LEZ, Congestion Charge, ULEZ TFL network continually being expanded........not forgetting now that TFL are employing vans with cameras to catch people. Chopping down or immobilising the very latest ULEZ cameras is huge 'business' right now and supported my many people!
Good points indeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Finally, a class action lawsuit against GM as to Onstar spying filed last week

Filed: March 13, 2024, Case : ◆§ 9:24-cv-80281

Onstar Lawsuit

A Florida resident claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that General Motors (GM) and OnStar illegally reported his driving behavior data to co-defendant LexisNexis without consent.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 28-page lawsuit says that after the plaintiff bought a new Cadillac XT6 from a Florida dealership in 2021, he downloaded the myCadillac app and opted not to enroll in OnStar Smart Driver, an optional feature that provides customers with certain GM vehicles insights into their driving behavior.

According to OnStar’s Smart Driver FAQs, the company claims it does not collect information about driving behavior unless a customer enrolls in the service and provides their explicit consent, the case relays. The plaintiff contends that he never enrolled in OnStar Smart Driver, which an OnStar representative has confirmed, and never gave the company permission to track or share his driving data. What’s more, the plaintiff’s online GM profile states that his vehicle is “not connected” to an OnStar account, the suit shares.

However, after several insurance providers denied the plaintiff’s attempts to purchase car insurance in December 2023, Liberty Mutual informed the man that his rejection was due to negative driving information in his LexisNexis report, the complaint says.

The plaintiff’s LexisNexis report, which he subsequently requested and received a few weeks later, had 258 recorded driving events allegedly sent through OnStar, each of which included details like when a trip started and ended, if any acceleration, hard brake or high-speed events occurred, and the distance traveled, the complaint contends.

The filing says that although this information harmed the plaintiff’s ability to purchase car insurance and caused his rates to nearly double, the data metrics included in his consumer report are “so decontextualized” that they fail to provide an accurate representation of his driving abilities.

“For example, ‘Record 5’ identifies two ‘Acceleration Events’ and one ‘Hard Brake Event[].’ The report does not define what either of these mean nor how they are calculated. Furthermore, the report does not explain how or why [the plaintiff] might have experienced these events. Stating these events, by themselves, says nothing of the other driving conditions and factors [the plaintiff] may have experienced.”

In the following weeks, the plaintiff contacted LexisNexis, GM, OnStar and Cadillac, but none could clarify how his driving data had been shared without his knowledge or consent, the complaint claims.

The plaintiff alleges GM and OnStar has misled consumers about their data-sharing policies, and that they began sharing his data when he downloaded the myCadillac app.

Per the filing, OnStar and GM have sent driving data about “millions” of consumers to LexisNexis without consent, in violation of Florida law.

“Furthermore, all [of the defendants] should have realized that sharing and publishing this information, without any context, inaccurately portrays consumers’ driving experience,” the case says, claiming that LexisNexis’s failure to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of the consumer data it reports is illegal under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who had their car’s driving data—also referred to as telematics—collected and shared with LexisNexis without their consent within the past four years.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
I hope all the yelling and making this public helped make this happen
I think pat of this is the feds hearing all this stated they were going to investigate all this and come up with a law to stop this crap
I suggest GM vehicle owners check now and again to see if Smartdriver was turned off, but that says nothing about what
is going on with the VCIM blind to the vehicle owners

Only time will tell if GM is totally quitting spying or playing a game of just about Smartdriver

GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash

After public outcry, General Motors has decided to stop sharing driving data from its connected cars with data brokers.
Last week, news broke that customers enrolled in GM's OnStar Smart Driver app have had their data shared with LexisNexis and Verisk.

Those data brokers in turn shared the information with insurance companies, resulting in some drivers finding it much harder or more expensive to obtain insurance.
To make matters much worse, customers allege they never signed up for OnStar Smart Driver in the first place, claiming the choice was made for them by salespeople during the car-buying process.

Now, in what feels like an all-too-rare win for privacy in the 21st century, that data-sharing deal is no more.

"As of March 20th, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk.

Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies," GM told us in a statement.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
General Motors said Friday it is severing ties with two data brokers following a lawsuit that connected the automaker to sharing driver data that resulted in higher auto insurance rates for that plaintiff.

In a lawsuit filed March 13, Romeo Chicco of Florida claims GM, its connected-services subsidiary OnStar and data and analytics company LexisNexis Risk Solutions violated privacy and consumer protection laws.

Chicco alleges GM captured and shared his driving data which included information about his speeding, braking and acceleration with LexisNexis, which then shared it with insurers. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, seeks class-action status.

Chicco's lawsuit accuses the parties of gathering, "erroneous reports of derogatory and negative driving information made without Plaintiff’s knowing consent. Additionally, this illegal transfer and publication of data constitutes an invasion of privacy" and the defendants' collective action caused Chicco "significant emotional distress."

The lawsuit could be the first of many, legal experts said.

"Sharing data without consent is bad," said David Vladeck, former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection during President Barack Obama's first term and a law professor at Georgetown University. "There will be cases coming down the pike. This is a serious breach by the car companies. It’s a breach of confidentiality and there are financial consequences.”

A 'standard rotten thing'

GM said it shares limited data with insurers through a third party, which is collected through the OnStar Smart Driver program, after a customer consents to it three times. That OnStar program is optional. It monitors driving habits to help reduce wear-and-tear on the car and improve driving safety and customers can unenroll at any time.

On Friday, GM spokesman Kevin Kelly declined to comment on the lawsuit, but he sent the Detroit Free Press the following statement: "As of March 20th, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk. Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies."

Kelly declined to provide any further information as to how long GM has done business with LexisNexis and Verisk, which is also a data analytics firm that collects and shares data to help businesses manage risk, or why GM severed ties at this time.

The practice of using data for purposes that are not made clear in the consent, is widespread across many industries, said Erik Gordon, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan — and a lawyer.

"It’s not just car companies. The fine print of disclosing data is used by cable companies, almost any app you download, loyalty programs by retailers. …. What the core of the plaintiff’s complaint is, is that the law allows data gathers, date resellers and data brokers to do things using fine print, in language that isn’t clear to the data-givers," Gordon said.

He believes this case will be settled, but if it proceeds to trial and the plaintiff wins, "there will be a rash of lawsuits" against automakers and others.

"What GM is doing here is the standard rotten thing that most companies do and that the government should step in and protect us against," said Gordon.

'Little to no oversight'

In December, Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the data privacy practices of 14 automakers. "Automakers are collecting large amounts of data on drivers, passengers, and even people outside the vehicle, with little to no oversight," Markey said.

Chicco's lawyer, Ryan McBride of San Diego-based Kazerouni Law Group, declined to comment on the lawsuit or make Chicco available.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions' website said the company analyzes data that it sells to insurers and others to help them manage risk. It did not respond to a request for a comment.

Verisk did not immediately respond with a comment to GM severing ties with it.

The lawsuit follows a recent investigation that found many automakers have been sharing customers' driving information with the insurance industry, leading to higher rates for some drivers.

A decline of OnStar services

The 36-page lawsuit stated that on Nov. 16, 2021, Chicco bought a new 2021 Cadillac XT6 SUV in Delray Beach, Florida, and that the purchase agreement made no mention of OnStar, LexisNexis, data-sharing, or anything privacy-related.

Chicco downloaded the MyCadillac App to his cellphone, the lawsuit stated. Days later, Chicco received an email offering him a Cadillac Connected Services trial and OnStar Safety and Security Coverage. It instructed him to hit the blue OnStar button to activate the services, which he never did because he said he did not want them.

The lawsuit said the email did not mention OnStar's Smart Driver program — for which, according to www.onstar.com, "there is no charge for customers to enroll." It is available as part of "Connected Access."

OnStar states: "With customer consent, we share select OnStar Smart Driver insights about driving behavior with LexisNexis and Verisk, third-party telematics exchange companies that work with some insurance carriers" and, it adds, "insights about driving behavior are only shared with an insurance carrier with your explicit consent."

A record of 258 driving trips

The lawsuit contends that Chicco never enrolled in any OnStar services and he never consented for his driving data to be shared.

Yet in December 2023, he called Liberty Mutual to ask why he was rejected for insurance. An agent said it was because of information in Chicco's LexisNexis report. Chicco got a copy of his LexisNexis report and it contained details of about 258 trips he had taken in his Cadillac in recent months, the lawsuit stated. It included the "acceleration events, hard brake events, high speed events," the lawsuit stated.

"Notably absent from the consumer report is any context related to these driving events," the complaint said.

Chicco said he called GM and LexisNexis several times to find out why his data had been collected without his consent, the lawsuit said. Eventually, he was told that his data came through OnStar because he had enrolled in OnStar’s Smart Driver program and he had an OnStar account. Chicco said he never enrolled in OnStar nor consented to sharing his driving data.

The complaint said no one at OnStar or GM could tell him why OnStar distributed his driving data without his consent.

GM should just stop selling data

It is unclear how much money GM makes from selling data. It is not broken out in the company's annual earnings filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But Gordon said it's likely a small percentage of GM's total multibillions in revenue, which might not be worth continuing to do it, he said.

"You make $5 million on it, but get $30 million in bad publicity and now we have a legal settlement," Gordon said. "There’s a near-term solution that says just drop it."

But with a proliferation of electric vehicles on the horizon, the connectivity of cars will increase and offer more opportunities for automakers to add revenue through data sharing, Gordon said. For example, selling a driver's GPS location to retailers who can then ping a driver to stop at their store, he said. The key will be to get drivers' clear and informed consent.

"For years, the trucking companies knew where all their trucks were and they knew when the truck was moving, how fast it was going and if it got off the freeway," Gordon said. "That information has been valuable for safety purposes and efficiency. But the difference is the drivers knew. This plaintiff said he didn’t know and most of us have no idea..”

'Your car isn't spying on you'

Georgetown's Vladeck agreed and added that what a person is doing while driving would be considered "sensitive data" by the Federal Trade Commission.

"If car companies are collecting the data to make the car safer, that’s one thing. But if they are doing it to monetize it and it leaves General Motors to go somewhere else, that’s a serious concern," Vladeck said.

In December, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation issued a statement titled, "No, your car isn’t spying … it’s keeping you safe." It said carmakers collect telematic driving data mostly to support the proper functions of the vehicle, including onboard computers for safety.

The alliance's memo did not address the sale of data, only that automakers are complying with privacy principles that are enforceable by the FTC.

"Yes, some of these policies might be a little confusing, accounting for incidental collection and inferences drawn from, for example, where the vehicle may have traveled," the alliance's memo states. "Blame the lawyers, but that’s to ensure manufacturer compliance with notice obligations in the growing patchwork of state privacy laws on health information, biometrics, and others. (Again, a single federal standard is urgent.)”
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
This C8 Z06 owner with less than 300 miles on it says this report was sent to his insurance company, and they raised the rates on this C8
Remember GM last spring saying no more spying or selling your data ?

Look at all the bad boy points in just that short mileage

Notice the report date :

Onstarspy.jpg
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Ford Motor Company, an iconic name in American engineering, is reportedly pivoting towards mass surveillance with its new patented technology designed to monitor and report the driving behavior of everyday Americans.

This patent, filed in January 2023, aims to equip vehicles with cameras that would activate upon detecting a speeding vehicle nearby.
These cameras would capture high-quality images and GPS data, which could then be shared with law enforcement agencies.

Many privacy advocates are alarmed by the implications of this technology, expressing concerns that it could create an invasive network of surveillance where even a minor traffic violation becomes an opportunity for government overreach.

As government partnerships with corporations continue to deepen, the line between public safety and privacy invasion increasingly blurs.
States with automated traffic enforcement like red-light and speeding cameras have faced significant backlash over the years, with many jurisdictions questioning their legality and efficacy.

In Texas, for instance, Governor Greg Abbott took a stand against surveillance-heavy practices by signing a bill to ban red-light cameras, highlighting that many cities had issued thousands of tickets unlawfully.

The trend of using technology to spy on citizens reflects a broader concern about government and corporate overreach in our daily lives.

Unfortunately, Ford's new initiative seems to echo a growing cultural sentiment that increasingly sees the average citizen as a potential lawbreaker rather than a valued customer.
The ethical ramifications of such technology cannot be overstated.

While the automaker touts safety benefits, critics warn about the potential misuse of this data, especially in light of recent revelations about how corporate giants exploit user data for profit.
In a climate where hackers and data brokers frequently violate privacy, should we place our trust in an automaker that proposes to track our every movement?

As more consumers express concern over violations of their rights, it’s clear that this is an issue that deserves serious consideration before it gains traction in the marketplace.
In an era where privacy feels more like a relic of the past, the last thing American citizens need is a vehicle that serves as a snitch on them.

We should remember that freedom is not just about choosing your vehicle; it’s about how freely you can drive it.
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Hmmmm - interesting topic Jon. As you'll probably be aware the UK very recently had a change of government (from Tory to Labour) - typically before teh general election Labour bleated-on about what they were going to do for the country to get us out of the supposed mess the Tory party had made of the economy etc etc blah, blah, blah. They also told us that all of the seemingly significant changes were 'fully costed' and we would face the burden of increased taxes etc to pay for all of their changes.
A few weeks in power and they have 'pulled' the pensioners additional heating allowance and are already 'mumbling' about other governmental cost savings aimed at the least wealth section of our population.
They are continuing the proposals to 'fill' the huge 'hole' in the governmental coffers due to the increased numbers of low and zero emission cars that pay zero or low road tax. Labour are touting the line that replacing annual road tax (which can be anywhere from £zero/£10 to £700 and more) with a 'pay per mile' scheme. They are quoting 'the line' that pensioners don't do many miles per year so 'pay per mile' will be of benefit to them.
Quite how they would monitor and measure this has not been made clear. Will they force car manufacturers to add the neccesary electronics to a new cars ECU.
All new cars as from just recently have to be sold with speed limiters - they will obviously monitor the cars speed (and presumably be capable of monitering/measuring other parameters?). Will those of us with vehicles perhaps purchased in the last 10/15 years have fit some kind of 'black box' in the car that records all vehicle use? (rather like some insurance companies demand that new drivers in more powerful cars use to monitor all vehicle usage? - Worrying future.
But having said all that - London Mayor, Sadiq Khan's very unpopular ULEZ charge zone that feature monitoring cameras at most major road intersection within the charge zone has proven difficult for him to operate properly. Many drivers are refusing to pay, with fines 'racking-up' in some cases of thousands of pounds.....and still the drivers refusing to pay.....with courts and bayliffs struggling under the workload. There are team of self named 'Bladerunners' under cover of night, wearing dark clothing and face mask using battery angle grinders to regularly chop down the camera poles. In daylight the same guys use paint/filler/foam rattle cans with step ladders to cover the camera lenses. They are regarded as modern day Robin Hoods by many and supportive of those less able to pay ULEZ charges. And there shows the direction for people against 'big brother' over there in the 'States Jon. Guess it wouldn't be too long after such a system was introduced that jammers and other 'anti' devices would become available.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
This is nothing but a mafia shakedown to grab all profit income from the public for counties/states and more free money to nameplates selling people's personal information and even than insurance companies to justifies higher rates

GM goes so far with OnStar to monitor what radio stations people us and then spams the owner via OnStar with local marketing ads.
Once GM has picked up the owner's local postal ZIP code than they flood the owner's car with local ads into the vehicle

Looks like we need an electronic device that jams the outbound frequencies OnStar uses to prevent that info getting to OnStar center so they cannot collect your information
Like a frequency generator putting out same signals as OnStar output
 

Stingray

CCCUK Member
The innocent have nothing to fear!
Yeah, right.

It all started with airbag systems where drivers claimed the airbag system hadn't fired properly. So manufacturers put in a recorder that captured the last few seconds before deployment. Then Audi owners drove their cars through the back of the garage claiming "runaway" with automatic transmissions - no evidence was ever found but the big liability suits encouraged use of recorders to see which pedal the driver had been pressing. Then we get to mobile phones that track your every move.

My theory is that REALLY GUILTY people are probably driving C3s and leaving their phone at home. Come on, you know who you are...
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The innocent have nothing to fear!
Yeah, right.

It all started with airbag systems where drivers claimed the airbag system hadn't fired properly. So manufacturers put in a recorder that captured the last few seconds before deployment. Then Audi owners drove their cars through the back of the garage claiming "runaway" with automatic transmissions - no evidence was ever found but the big liability suits encouraged use of recorders to see which pedal the driver had been pressing. Then we get to mobile phones that track your every move.

My theory is that REALLY GUILTY people are probably driving C3s and leaving their phone at home. Come on, you know who you are...

Guess you all can feel lucky that Onstar is not allowed in the UK, maybe someone listened to my bitches about the
commie spies in Russia or Ireland listening to all your phone calls to hookers :)
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against General Motors (GM), alleging that the automotive giant engaged in deceptive and unlawful business practices by collecting and selling private driving data from over 1.5 million Texans without their knowledge or consent.

This lawsuit follows Paxton’s announcement in June 2024 that he had launched an investigation into several car manufacturers suspected of improperly harvesting vast amounts of data directly from vehicles.

The findings have been alarming, revealing a disturbing trend among companies leveraging invasive technologies to exploit unsuspecting consumers.
“Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law.
We will hold them accountable,” said Attorney General Paxton.
“Companies are using invasive technology to violate the rights of our citizens in unthinkable ways.”

The crux of the lawsuit centers around GM’s use of technology installed in most vehicles manufactured since 2015. This technology allegedly collects, records, analyzes, and transmits detailed driving data every time a driver uses their vehicle, according to the press release.

Shockingly,

GM sold this sensitive information to various third parties, including insurance companies, who used it to generate “Driving Scores” aimed at influencing insurance premiums.


“A customer’s Driving Score was based on a series of “factors” developed by General Motors that were supposedly indicative of “bad” driving behavior and included behavior such as
(1) unique identifiers of a trip;
(2) trip mileage;
(3) hard braking and acceleration events;
(4) speed events over 80 miles per hour; and
(5) other behavior tracked by OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics (“OVD”). Under the Verisk Agreement, GM provided Verisk with the Driving Data necessary to determine whether a customer exhibited any “bad” driving behaviors,” according to the lawsuit.

This sensitive information includes location tracking, driving habits, personal communications within the vehicle’s system, customer ID, name, and home address.

Attorney General Paxton emphasized the betrayal felt by consumers: “Millions of American drivers wanted to buy a car, not a comprehensive surveillance system that unlawfully records information about every drive they take and sells their data to any company willing to pay for it.”

The lawsuit reveals that GM misled customers during the on boarding process for its products, including OnStar Smart Driver.
Many were coerced into enrolling under the false pretense that failing to do so would result in the deactivation of crucial safety features in their vehicles.

However, what customers did not realize was that by enrolling, they were inadvertently consenting to GM’s extensive collection and sale of their driving data, a blatant violation of consumer trust.
“In 2015, General Motors entered into the first of many agreements to sell its customers’ Driving Data.

Over the course of nearly a decade, General Motors continued to sell, re-sell, and have other companies license out access to its customers’ Driving Data, oftentimes in a manner it knew would financially harm those customers.

On information and belief, General Motors sold over 16 million of its customers’ Driving Data to other companies,
including the data of 1.8 million Texans,” according to the lawsuit.


You can read the lawsuit attached as a PDF
 

Attachments

  • GMdata-privacysued.pdf
    6.3 MB · Views: 0
Top