Washington's attorney general says dealership employees accepted terms for some buyers, and driving data passed through brokers to insurers that used it in pricing. The agreement calls for express consent before collecting or using covered driver data, or disclosing it to third parties, subject to specified exceptions.
General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC and OnStar, LLC agreed to pay $220 million under a Washington consent decree after attorneys general alleged dealers enrolled drivers without consent. Washington's attorney general says GM sold Smart Driver data to brokers, who resold it to insurers that, for many consumers, used it in part to set rates. This week, the decree recorded GM's agreement to require express driver consent, with specified exceptions, before collecting or sharing covered data. Washington's allotted payment is $12,311,819, due within 30 days after the decree's November 30 effective date. The agreement turns on who actually agrees to the data collection, and what that driver is told about insurance use.
GM admits no violation or liability in the decree. Reuters, in a report published by Insurance Journal, quoted a GM spokesperson saying connected vehicle data can enable safer, more personalized services and that the company is committed to clarity about its use and customers' choices. The decree resolves the state's investigation of the data collection and sharing practices described in the Washington complaint. Under the decree, Washington's consumer protection claims arising from the alleged conduct are released after full payment; the state retains the ability to enforce the agreement.
Subscribe free and the full Washington panel opens on this device: the verdict count, total damages, median and largest verdict. Plus one courtroom story every Monday.
Washington's attorney general says GM enrolled millions of drivers in Smart Driver from 2016 through 2024. GM presented the program as a way for drivers to improve their safety and told them it would not share their data with insurers without express consent, according to the attorney general. The state says most signups occurred when customers bought their cars, through a process that enrolled them in Smart Driver alongside OnStar services.
The attorney general alleges that dealership employees accepted terms on behalf of customers in many cases without their consent. Its account describes a sales incentive alongside that practice: employees received bonuses based partly on connected service enrollments, and dealerships were ranked by enrollment numbers. Those details give the consent allegation its force. The disputed act was not simply a customer overlooking a disclosure. In the state's account, someone at the dealership could accept it for the buyer.
The state's account describes a second failure after signup. Washington's attorney general says the OnStar app mistakenly told more than 370,000 drivers they were **not** enrolled in Smart Driver when GM was collecting and selling their data. It says GM later unenrolled those drivers without telling them about the mistake and left the data with brokers and insurers.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
Washington's attorney general says GM's contracts with data brokers specified that Smart Driver information was for insurance products. The brokers sold it to insurance companies, which could use driving habits to change premiums. For many consumers, the attorney general says, insurers used the information in part to set rates. The state also says GM had not disclosed to drivers that their data would be sold for that purpose.
The information went beyond a mileage reading. According to the attorney general, insurers received data showing trip counts, the start and end of each drive, hard braking or acceleration, and whether a driver exceeded the speed limit. **P&L translation:** the pricing consequence sat downstream from the dealership signup, where a buyer's alleged lack of consent at enrollment could follow that driver into an insurance rate. The Washington case addresses GM's alleged conduct in that chain; the named defendants are GM entities, not the insurers.
The decree requires a driver's clear, affirmative agreement before GM collects or uses covered driving data, or discloses it to a third party, subject to specified exceptions. Separate, unrelated services or features require separate consent. Acceptance of general or broad terms that mix covered driver data processing with unrelated information does not count as affirmative express consent. If GM discloses covered driver data to a third party for insurance pricing based on driving behavior, it must obtain affirmative express consent and tell OnStar users that the data may be used for insurance rates or coverage.
The agreement reaches back to the dealership. Within 60 days of its November 30 effective date, GM must put dealer training and materials in place instructing staff to let customers review and accept privacy disclosures themselves before OnStar enrollment. A separate enrollment procedure must require independent action by the consumer; someone who does not act within 10 days of an enrollment notice is treated as declining. GM must also sample enrollments for unusual patterns that may indicate dealer noncompliance.
Washington's share is designated for the attorney general's costs, future monitoring or enforcement, or another lawful purpose of the office. For other Washington litigation, see Washington verdicts.
The first date to watch is November 30, when the decree takes effect. The $220 million is due within 30 days after that, and Washington's release of its claims follows full payment. Within 60 days of November 30, GM must have the dealer training and the OnStar enrollment procedure in place. Under that procedure, a customer who does not act within 10 days of an enrollment notice is treated as declining.
The readiness check has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the 2-minute readiness check →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.