Class Action Against General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions [pdf]

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Telematics data sharing and lawsuit basics

  • Complaint alleges GM/OnStar collected detailed driving telematics (time, speed, hard braking, acceleration, distance, VIN) and shared them with LexisNexis and others without clear consent.
  • Plaintiff says they never activated OnStar, never opted into insurance programs, yet saw 258 “telematics” events in their LexisNexis consumer report.
  • Related reports say data also flows via LexisNexis and Verisk from multiple automakers to insurers.

Legal theories and remedies

  • Claims include: Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, Florida deceptive/unfair trade practices, and common-law invasion of privacy.
  • Discussion contrasts injunctive relief vs. specific performance; courts rarely force product redesign, especially in class actions that tend to end in monetary settlements.
  • Some note CCPA/CPRA and FCRA carve-outs, and that US enforcement is generally weak versus EU GDPR, where large fines and DPAs make such schemes much riskier.

User anger, distrust, and resignation

  • Many are enraged and feel betrayed, especially owners who never enabled telematics.
  • Strong sentiment that fines are treated as “cost of doing business,” so behavior won’t change.
  • Others express resignation: monitoring will become normalized, and opting out will be priced out.

Technical countermeasures

  • Users discuss pulling fuses, disconnecting antennas, removing telematics modules, or adding RF terminators/attenuators; eSIMs and shared fuses complicate this.
  • Some guides and model-specific tricks (e.g., Toyota DCM/DCS fuses, Bolt antenna mods) are referenced, with trade-offs like losing Bluetooth, GPS, or front speakers.
  • Faraday-style shielding is considered unreliable without careful RF design.

Insurance and telematics incentives

  • Some see potential benefits in safer-driving discounts and better rating of aggressive drivers.
  • Others argue such systems quickly become de facto mandatory, raising baseline prices and punishing non-participants.
  • Concern that data could be misinterpreted (e.g., test drives, mechanic work) or used in opaque underwriting decisions.

Broader surveillance and policy context

  • Thread links this to pervasive data brokerage (ISPs, apps, smart devices) and lack of strong US privacy law.
  • GDPR is cited as an effective deterrent model; calls for a US “privacy bill of rights” and harsher corporate and personal penalties are common.