When Romeo Chico tried to get car insurance in December, seven different companies turned him down. When he eventually got insurance, it was almost double the price he was paying before. According to a federal complaint filed this week seeking class-action status, the reason is that his 2021 Cadillac XT6 spied on him.
Today’s cars are called “smartphones on wheels” because they are connected to the Internet and packed with sensors and cameras. According to the complaint, a Liberty Mutual agent told Mr. Chicco that he was rejected because of information in his “LexisNexis report.” LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a data broker, traditionally tracks driver traffic violations, previous insurance coverage and accidents for insurers.
When Mr. Chicco requested his LexisNexis file, it contained details of 258 trips he had taken in his Cadillac over the past six months. His record included the distance traveled, when the journeys started and ended, and a record of any speeding and sudden braking or acceleration. The data was provided by General Motors – the manufacturer of his Cadillac.
In a complaint against General Motors and LexisNexis Risk Solutions filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Chicco accused the companies of violating privacy and consumer protection laws. The lawsuit follows a report by The New York Times that, unbeknownst to consumers, car manufacturers were sharing information about their driving behavior with the insurance industry, leading to higher insurance rates for some drivers. LexisNexis Risk Solutions and another data broker called Verisk claim to have real-world driving behavior from millions of cars.
In his complaint, Mr. Chicco said he called GM and LexisNexis multiple times to ask why his data had been collected without his consent. He was eventually told that his data was sent through OnStar — GM’s connected services company, which is also named in the suit — and that he had enrolled in OnStar’s Smart Driver program, a feature to get driver feedback and digital badges for good driving.
Mr. Chicco said he had not signed up for OnStar or Smart Driver, although he had downloaded MyCadillac, an app from General Motors, for his car.
“What nobody can tell me is how I got into it,” Mr. Cicco said in an interview with The Times this month. “You can tell me how many times I speeded on January 30th between 6am and 8am, but you can’t tell me how I signed up for it?”
A GM spokeswoman, Mallory Lucic, said earlier that customers signed up for SmartDriver in their connected car app or at a dealership, and that a clause in OnStar’s privacy statement explained that their data could be shared with “third parties “. Asked about the lawsuit, she said via email that the company was “reviewing the complaint” and had no comment, pointing instead to a statement the company had previously made about OnStar Smart Driver.
“GM’s OnStar Smart Driver service is optional for customers,” the statement said. “Benefits for customers include learning more about their safe driving behavior or vehicle performance, which with their consent can be used to obtain insurance quotes.” Customers can also unsubscribe from Smart Driver at any time.”
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which previously said it analyzed the kind of driving data Mr. Chicco found in his file to create a risk score it then sold to insurers, declined to comment.
“I would never have given permission for this data to be published,” Mr Chicco said earlier. Reached after the lawsuit was filed, he said he had no comment.
David Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor who previously led the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection bureau, said the driving data companies collect is considered highly sensitive, meaning there must be “clear notice’ to users and express consent to their collection and sale.
Mr. Vladek said he expects an FTC investigation as well as consumer lawsuits against automakers and data brokers.
“Just wait for the avalanche,” he said. “It’s coming.”
