General Motors data collection and sharing controversy: Difference between revisions

<!-- IMPORTANT: CURRENTLY ALL THE REFERENCES FOR THIS ARTICLE ARE BUGGED. -->[[General Motors]] (GM) has been collecting and monetizing driving data from millions of internet connected vehicles since 2015.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> Through its OnStar system and vehicle telematics, GM gathers comprehensive data about drivers, including trip details, driving behavior, and real-time location information.<ref name="texaslawsuit">[[:File:General_Motors_Original_Petition_Filestamped.pdf|General Motors Original Petition (Filestamped)]] 2024-08-13</ref> These data collection practices have been marketed to drivers as features for safety and convenience. GM now faces legal and regulatory scrutiny alleging that the practices are potentially deceptive, and that consumers were given inadequate disclosure.<ref name="nytimes">[https://web.archive.org/web/20240311090514/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html Carmakers, Driver Tracking, and Insurance] ''The New York Times'' Retrieved 2025-01-19</ref>

GM has shared driving data from over 14 million vehicles (including 1.8 million in Texas alone) with commercial data brokers like LexisNexis and Verisk, who analyze it to create "driving scores" that are sold to insurance companies.<ref name="texaslawsuit" /> These scores have reportedly led to increased insurance premiums and coverage denials for consumers who were unaware their data were being collected and sold.<ref name="nytimes" /> Additionally, investigations have revealed that GM shares customer location data with law enforcement through subpoenas rather than requiring warrants, a practice that contradicts the company's public-privacy commitments.<ref name="wydenletter1">[[:File:Signed_wyden_markey_letter_to_ftc_with_attachmentpdf.pdf|Signed Wyden-Markey Letter to FTC with Attachment]] 2024-04-30</ref>

The company's data-collection practices have attracted attention from federal legislators, state attorneys general, and privacy advocates, who argue that GM failed to obtain informed consent from consumers and used deceptive techniques to enroll drivers in data-collection programs without their informed consent.<ref name="wydenletter2">Wyden, Ron and Markey, Edward. [[:File:Wyden-markey_auto_privacy_letter_to_ftc.pdf|Wyden-Markey Auto Privacy Letter to FTC]] 2024-07-26</ref> This article examines GM's data collection and sharing practices, their impact on consumers, and the resulting legal and regulatory challenges, as well as the harm done by the [[EULA roofie]].