Simon Glairy is a distinguished strategist in the Insurtech sector, renowned for his deep expertise in risk management and the ethical implementation of artificial intelligence. With decades of experience navigating the intersection of automotive technology and insurance, he has become a leading voice advocating for consumer data sovereignty. In this discussion, he explores the critical need for transparency, the shifting economic value of personal driving metrics, and the urgent requirement for a new “Insurance Data Bill of Rights” to protect policyholders in an increasingly connected world.
Modern vehicle owners often sign lengthy terms and conditions without realizing their driving data is being shared. How has this practice eroded the traditional relationship between agents and policyholders, and what specific steps can insurers take to rebuild a foundation of transparency?
The traditional bond between an independent agent and a policyholder was built on the idea of a trusted partnership where the agent worked to protect the client’s risks. Today, that trust is eroding because drivers feel blindsided when they discover their connected vehicle systems are feeding data to third parties without their explicit understanding. To fix this, the industry must move beyond burying disclosures in fine print and instead prioritize clear, upfront communication. Insurers need to get ahead of the problem by treating transparency as a core value, or they risk a future where consumers flatly refuse to share any information at all. If we don’t act now, we create a standoff where we refuse to provide policies and drivers refuse to provide data, which helps no one.
Many systems currently require users to manually opt-out of data sharing. What are the practical implications of switching to a mandatory opt-in model for all non-coverage purposes, and how would this shift the power dynamic between drivers and third-party data aggregators?
Switching to a mandatory opt-in model would fundamentally return power to the originator of the datthe policyholder. Currently, the burden is on the driver to navigate complex settings to stop their information from being sold, but an “explicit request” system would mean no data moves unless the consumer says “yes” for a specific reason. This creates a powerful ripple effect because it empowers both drivers and insurers to challenge the current status quo. If a driver hasn’t consented, the existing contracts that automakers have with third-party aggregators could essentially be viewed as void. It forces the industry to ask for permission rather than forgiveness, turning the driver back into the owner of their digital footprint.
Third-party data collectors often maintain high profit margins because they do not pay for the raw data they aggregate. Why should individual consumers receive direct compensation or tangible benefits for their data, and what would a fair value-exchange look like in a real-world scenario?
It is a striking imbalance when organizations can maintain profit margins upwards of 50% simply because they have zero cost of goods sold for the data they aggregate. If these companies want to be in the data business, they should be required to pay for the raw material they are collecting from everyday drivers. A fair value-exchange would mean that if your driving habits are being used to generate massive corporate profits, you should receive a tangible benefit, such as direct compensation or a significant reduction in premiums. We need to move toward a model where the consumer is a participant in the transaction, not just a product being harvested for free.
Policyholders frequently face difficulties when trying to remove their information from a database after a contract ends. What technical challenges exist for implementing a “right to claw back” data, and how could a universal data deletion policy impact long-term insurance risk assessment?
The concept of a “right to claw back” data is essential for maintaining consumer autonomy once a business relationship has concluded. When a driver moves to a different auto insurer, they should have the absolute right to stipulate that their previous provider must delete their personal driving history. While the technical challenge involves ensuring that data is thoroughly purged from interconnected third-party databases, the policy impact is even more significant. It would force insurers to focus on current, relevant data rather than relying on a permanent “digital ghost” of a driver’s past. A universal deletion policy ensures that your data doesn’t follow you forever, allowing for a fresh start with new providers based on present behavior.
Artificial Intelligence is rapidly increasing the speed and scale at which driving habits are analyzed. How is AI specifically changing the way this information impacts a driver’s daily life, and what risks emerge when consumers remain unaware of the depth of this continuous monitoring?
Artificial Intelligence is acting as a giant spotlight, making it possible to extract more value and insight from driving data than ever before. Most people truly don’t understand that their information is being maintained at a level that can have a profound impact on their daily lives, from the rates they pay to their eligibility for services. The risk is that as AI accelerates the sharing and analysis of this data, the monitoring becomes so pervasive that it subtly dictates human behavior without the driver even knowing they are being judged. This continuous, invisible surveillance creates a world where your car is essentially reporting on your every move, making the need for an “Insurance Data Bill of Rights” more urgent than ever.
What is your forecast for driving data privacy?
I believe we are approaching a critical tipping point where the industry must choose between self-regulation and heavy-handed legislative intervention. My forecast is that AI will continue to make driving data more profitable for aggregators, which will simultaneously increase public awareness and frustration. Within the next few years, I expect to see a significant movement toward “opt-in” requirements becoming the legal standard, as consumers demand the right to control and monetize their own information. If insurers don’t work to earn back that lost trust now by championing transparency, they will find themselves operating in a much more restricted and regulated environment where the “right to claw back” data is a standard expectation for every driver on the road.
