GM says its terms allowed driver-data sharing; consumers dispute consent.
GM invokes its user terms to defend driver-data sharing. Consumers dispute the scope of consent, while a separate $220 million state settlement sets new requirements without resolving a nationwide private class action.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
GM and OnStar argue that their user terms and privacy statement permitted collecting and sharing driving data. Consumers in federal litigation say the collection exceeded their authorization. On April 22, 2026, a federal judge allowed the contract claim to proceed while dismissing some other claims.
On October 29, Michigan announced a $220 million settlement reached by a coalition of 36 attorneys general. Attorney General Dana Nessel condemned tracking and selling driving data without consent. The consent judgment is stipulated without admission of facts or liability. Michigan says it provides no consumer restitution and that a nationwide private class action remains pending.
Read the full background
The dispute concerns permission to collect and share detailed driving behavior and location data through OnStar and Smart Driver. The federal court addressed whether pleaded claims could proceed, rather than deciding final liability. The Michigan announcement (opens in a new tab) distinguishes the state settlement from the private lawsuit.
People in this case
Dana NesselDirectly involved
Timeline
3 timeline entries on this page. Dates: December 13, 2024 to October 29, 2026
December 2024
Consumers file consolidated driver-data complaint.
Claim
Verisk's SEC filing dates the amended master consolidated class action complaint in the Georgia MDL to December 13, 2024. The federal opinion identifies GM, OnStar, Verisk and LexisNexis Risk Solutions among the defendants.
[01]In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and order
The opinion records competing arguments about contractual consent and declines to dismiss the contract claim. It resolves pleading issues, not final liability.
In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and orderDocument 203, procedural history and contract-consent discussion, pp. 146-149[02]Verisk quarterly filing describes GM driver-data litigation
The co-defendant's public filing supplies the motion dates and procedural history. Its account is distinct from a judicial finding.
Verisk quarterly filing describes GM driver-data litigationCommitments and contingencies: driver-data litigation, motions filed April 14, 2025
April 2026
Federal court lets breach-of-contract claim proceed.
The court grants dismissal in part and denies it in part. It says collecting the data could exceed the authorization allowed, so Count 8 continues.
[01]In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and order
The opinion records competing arguments about contractual consent and declines to dismiss the contract claim. It resolves pleading issues, not final liability.
In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and orderDocument 203, procedural history and contract-consent discussion, pp. 146-149
October 2026
Michigan announces $220 million multistate GM settlement.
Michigan announced the multistate agreement. The published Michigan document stipulates to a proposed consent judgment without admission of facts or liability and defines November 30, 2026 as its effective date. The announcement says it provides no consumer restitution and leaves a nationwide private class action pending.
[03]Michigan announces $220 million GM driver-data settlement
The attorney general describes allegations, settlement terms and the separate private class action.
Michigan announces $220 million GM driver-data settlementSettlement announcement and Dana Nessel statement[04]Michigan publishes stipulated GM driver-data consent judgment
The published document stipulates to a proposed judgment without admission of facts or liability and defines November 30, 2026 as its effective date. The copy has blank court-entry and signature fields; the October announcement is not proof that payment has occurred.
Michigan publishes stipulated GM driver-data consent judgmentOpening stipulation; definitions; consent, privacy program and payment provisions
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
GM told drivers it would not share their data with insurers without express consent, then sold it to data brokers for insurance products.
What is disputed
This is the coalition's allegation reported by Michigan's attorney general. GM and OnStar invoke contractual authorization, while consumers dispute its scope. The federal opinion addresses pleading issues and does not decide final liability.
Sources (1)
- Michigan announces $220 million GM driver-data settlementSettlement announcement and Dana Nessel statement
Arguments
Documented position
Consumers' position as recorded in the April 22 federal opinion.
The collection exceeded consumers' authorization.
The consumers argue that GM collected more detailed information than the user terms reasonably authorized and that the terms were ambiguous about the scope of collection.
Limit of this argument
The court allowed the contract claim to proceed at the pleading stage; that ruling did not decide final liability.
Read sources
Sources
- In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and orderDocument 203, procedural history and contract-consent discussion, pp. 146-149
Documented position
GM and OnStar's motion to dismiss, described in the April 22 opinion. Verisk's SEC filing dates the defendants' motions generally to April 14, 2025.
The user terms authorized collection and sharing.
GM and OnStar rely on the User Terms and incorporated Privacy Statement to argue that collecting and sharing the driving data was contractually permitted.
Limit of this argument
The court declined to dismiss Count 8 because the pleaded collection could exceed the scope of authorization.
Read sources
Sources
- In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and orderDocument 203, procedural history and contract-consent discussion, pp. 146-149
- Verisk quarterly filing describes GM driver-data litigationCommitments and contingencies: driver-data litigation, motions filed April 14, 2025
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
1 matching response. Newest first.
Dana NesselMichigan attorney generalDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Nessel announced Michigan's participation in the multistate settlement.
"Discovering after the fact that a company has been tracking and selling their driving data without their consent is unacceptable."
CondemnedCase context: GM says its terms allowed driver-data sharing; consumers dispute consent.
Full statement and sources
Dana Nessel condemns tracking and selling driving data without consent.
After the statement
She said the settlement will hold GM accountable and secure safeguards. The release says a nationwide private class action remains pending.
Michigan announces $220 million GM driver-data settlementSettlement announcement and Dana Nessel statementWhy this label?
She expressly rejects the data-sharing conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(4)
Original text
In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection: opinion and order
Relevant passage: Document 203, procedural history and contract-consent discussion, pp. 146-149
About this source
The opinion records competing arguments about contractual consent and declines to dismiss the contract claim. It resolves pleading issues, not final liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Verisk quarterly filing describes GM driver-data litigation
Relevant passage: Commitments and contingencies: driver-data litigation, motions filed April 14, 2025
About this source
The co-defendant's public filing supplies the motion dates and procedural history. Its account is distinct from a judicial finding.
- Accessed
Original text
Michigan publishes stipulated GM driver-data consent judgment
Relevant passage: Opening stipulation; definitions; consent, privacy program and payment provisions
About this source
The published document stipulates to a proposed judgment without admission of facts or liability and defines November 30, 2026 as its effective date. The copy has blank court-entry and signature fields; the October announcement is not proof that payment has occurred.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Michigan announces $220 million GM driver-data settlement
Relevant passage: Settlement announcement and Dana Nessel statement
About this source
The attorney general describes allegations, settlement terms and the separate private class action.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- GM says its terms allowed driver-data sharing; consumers dispute consent.
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/gm-onstar-driver-data-sharing-consent
The Dispute Index. "GM says its terms allowed driver-data sharing; consumers dispute consent.". First published: 2026-11-03. Last updated: 2026-11-03. https://disputeindex.com/cases/gm-onstar-driver-data-sharing-consent