While General Motors discontinued its Smart Driver program in early 2024 following public scrutiny, the state of Montana argues the company must still be held liable for past violations. The legal challenge, spearheaded by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, asserts that General Motors and its subsidiary OnStar converted the modern automobile into a sophisticated surveillance platform. The 31-page complaint filed in the First Judicial District Court characterizes this practice as a fundamental betrayal of consumer trust, alleging that driver behavior was commodified without transparent disclosure. For years, the automaker marketed its Smart Driver feature as a low-stakes tool for self-improvement, using analogies such as a “B+” grade to describe driving habits. However, the state contends these scores were far from temporary or harmless, serving instead as a detailed dossier for third-party data brokers. This litigation marks a significant moment in the intersection of automotive technology and privacy law, as it seeks to address the long-term consequences of telematics data sharing. As the legal proceedings unfold throughout 2026, the case highlights the urgent need for robust protections against the unauthorized monetization of personal habits. The outcome could redefine the boundaries of what automakers are permitted to collect and sell, ensuring that the convenience of connectivity does not come at the steep price of personal autonomy and financial stability for millions of drivers across the nation.
1. The Onboarding Process: Strategic Enrollment and Transparency Gaps
According to the legal complaint, Montana alleges that General Motors utilized a specific procedure during vehicle purchases to enroll customers in data tracking without clear transparency. This process began at the dealership level, where the transition from a prospective buyer to a vehicle owner often involved a flurry of digital interactions managed by sales staff. To initiate the digital setup, a dealership staff member would log into the proprietary GM system and input the unique vehicle identification number (VIN). This action opened the OnStar account portal, effectively bridging the physical purchase with a digital ecosystem that most consumers had not yet fully considered. The state argues that this initial step was presented as a mandatory part of the vehicle delivery process rather than an optional service enrollment. By integrating the setup into the final moments of the sale, the automaker allegedly created an environment where buyers felt compelled to comply to finalize their ownership and drive their new vehicle off the lot.
Once the system was primed with the vehicle’s specific data, the salesperson would present the interface to the buyer, often by physically turning a tablet or computer screen toward them. This screen typically displayed a prominent “Get started” prompt, encouraging the customer to complete the final steps of ownership. The state’s filing suggests that this interface was designed to minimize friction and speed up the enrollment process, often omitting any verbal or visual cues that the following steps were entirely voluntary. By framing the interaction as a necessary technical requirement for “taking ownership,” the dealership staff—incentivized by bonuses and commissions—allegedly guided consumers into a tracking regime they did not fully understand. This moment of interaction is a focal point of the lawsuit, as it represents the point where personal driving behavior began to be captured for external use, far removed from the simple promise of roadside assistance or emergency services typically associated with the OnStar brand.
To fulfill the legal requirements of the setup, the system would display extensive legal documents, including the User Terms for Connected Vehicle Services and the General Motors U.S. Connected Services Privacy Statement. These documents collectively totaled nearly 50 pages of dense, technical language that was difficult to navigate on a dealership floor. Along with these documents, the interface provided standard “I accept” and “I decline” options for the customer to select. Montana’s complaint alleges that most buyers likely saw only the first paragraph of each document without scrolling through the dozens of pages required to reach the specific disclosures about data sharing. Furthermore, the state contends that even a thorough reading of these documents would not have clearly informed the consumer that their specific trip-level driving data, including acceleration and braking patterns, was being packaged and sold to third-party data brokers for the purpose of adjusting insurance premiums or denying coverage altogether.
2. Navigating Consent: The Impact of Deactivation Warnings
The legal challenge further details the hurdles placed in front of consumers who attempted to protect their privacy during the onboarding sequence. If a buyer chose to exercise their autonomy by selecting the “I decline” option, the system did not simply respect that choice and move to the next screen. Instead, the interface would issue a deactivation alert in the form of a high-stakes warning message. This alert informed the customer that declining the terms would result in the deactivation of all connected services, specifically highlighting essential safety features like Automatic Crash Response and Emergency Services. The state argues that this tactic was inherently misleading because it described the termination of services that had never been activated in the first place. By framing the decision to decline as a dangerous choice that would leave the driver unprotected in a collision, the system applied significant psychological pressure to reverse the decision and accept the tracking terms.
Following this initial warning, users who persisted in their refusal were met with a final confirmation screen. This interface would confirm service termination, informing the user that all services on the vehicle “have been deactivated” and prominently encouraging them to return to the terms page to reconsider their decision. The complaint highlights that even after leaving the dealership, those who successfully avoided enrollment were often subjected to repeated follow-up emails inviting them to start a trial period for the services. This persistent pursuit of enrollment suggests a corporate strategy focused on maximizing the number of active data streams at the expense of consumer preference. The lawsuit characterizes these “dark patterns” as a violation of unfair trade practices, as they were designed to wear down the consumer’s resolve and secure a level of consent that was neither fully informed nor truly voluntary, given the implied risks to personal safety presented during the rejection process.
3. Data Chronology: Tracking the Transfer to Third Parties
The state claims that General Motors shared 36 distinct categories of driving behavior—such as speeding over 80 miles per hour, hard braking, and seat-belt usage—with several third-party entities over the last decade. This systematic data harvesting was not an occasional occurrence but a structured business model involving multiple high-profile partners. The chronology began in earnest with Verisk Analytics in 2015, an agreement through which GM allegedly received a large upfront payment and ongoing royalties for licensing driver data. This information was integrated into Verisk’s Telematics Data Exchange, where insurance companies could purchase licenses to access driving scores for hundreds of thousands of customers. The state’s filing indicates that these royalties were tied directly to the volume and utility of the data provided, creating a financial incentive for the automaker to monitor as many aspects of the driving experience as technologically possible.
Following the success of the Verisk partnership, the automaker expanded its data-sharing network to include other specialized firms. In 2018, Wejo, a startup focused on connected vehicles, reportedly entered into an agreement where it shared a portion of its revenue with GM in exchange for access to its massive database of driver movements. This was followed in 2019 by a deal with LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a prominent broker that reportedly transformed GM’s raw data into detailed “Driving Scores” sold directly to insurers. These scores were used to determine policy rates, often leading to increased premiums for drivers who were unaware that their vehicle was reporting back to their insurance provider. The final major arrangement noted in the complaint involved the Jacobs Engineering Group in 2024, where GM allegedly authorized the licensing of anonymized data in exchange for a share of the profits. Together, these partnerships represent a long-term strategy of data monetization that Montana seeks to dismantle through legal action and significant financial penalties.
4. Consumer Mitigation: Practical Steps for Information Control
While General Motors has officially ended these specific data-sharing partnerships, vehicle owners are encouraged to take proactive measures to manage their information and mitigate any lingering effects from previous data sales. One of the most effective first steps is to request reports from data brokers directly. Individuals should contact LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk to obtain free consumer disclosure reports. These documents will allow owners to check for any specific records linked to their vehicle identification number (VIN), such as trip logs, braking events, or speeding incidents that may have been reported to insurers. Reviewing these reports is essential for identifying whether a driver’s insurance profile has been negatively impacted by telematics data, providing the necessary documentation to dispute any inaccuracies or unfair premium increases that may have occurred during the peak of the data-sharing program.
In addition to auditing third-party records, owners should take direct action with the manufacturer to prevent future data exploitation. A primary recommendation is to submit a data deletion request to GM through the official privacy portal or by contacting their dedicated privacy phone line. This process allows the manufacturer to erase the personal driving history and behavioral patterns stored in their internal databases. Furthermore, drivers can adjust in-vehicle privacy controls by navigating to the “Privacy Settings” menu within the car’s infotainment system. On many newer models, this allows for the manual deactivation of location services, though some basic data may still be collected for emergency purposes. For those seeking the highest level of privacy, it is possible to evaluate a complete service disconnection by calling OnStar to cancel all connected services entirely. However, it is important to remember that this choice will disable emergency response features, so the decision should be weighed carefully against personal safety requirements.
5. Conclusion: Strategic Next Steps for Vehicle Owners
The legal landscape surrounding the Montana lawsuit demonstrated that the era of unregulated automotive data collection faced significant headwinds. As the case progressed, it became evident that the historical lack of transparency in telematics necessitated a more vigilant approach from the driving public. Throughout the duration of the litigation, consumers learned that their vehicles were not just machines for transportation, but significant nodes in a global data economy. The state’s pursuit of a permanent injunction and civil fines sent a clear message to the industry that deceptive enrollment practices would no longer be tolerated. For many owners, the realization that their driving habits influenced their financial standing was a catalyst for a broader movement toward digital sovereignty. This shift in perspective prompted many to adopt a more critical view of the “terms and conditions” they once accepted without a second thought, fostering a new standard for consumer advocacy in the automotive sector.
To secure a more private future, drivers was advised to maintain an open and documented dialogue with their insurance providers. If a policyholder noticed an unexplained jump in rates or was denied coverage, inquiring in writing whether the company utilized third-party telematics or driver scores was a vital step. Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, insurers were generally required to disclose if an adverse action was based on a consumer report, providing a legal lever for drivers to challenge the use of surreptitious data. Looking ahead, the integration of these lessons into daily digital hygiene helped ensure that personal mobility remained a private experience. By remaining informed about state-level investigations and utilizing available deletion tools, vehicle owners were able to reclaim control over their data. This proactive stance not only protected individual privacy but also contributed to a broader cultural shift where transparency and consent became the baseline for all future connected vehicle technologies.
