GM collects driver behavior data then sells access to insurance companies

Language tangent (“pissed off”)

• Thread briefly digresses into UK/US slang: “pissed off” = angry in both; UK also uses “pissed” = drunk and “taking the piss” = mocking, which aren’t common in US usage.

Is usage-based pricing fair?

• Many agree in principle that genuinely reckless drivers should pay more.
• Others argue it’s only fair if safe drivers clearly pay less; otherwise it’s just a revenue lever.
• Concern that “reckless” is defined by opaque algorithms using limited telemetry (e.g., hard braking, fast acceleration) without scene context.
• Some object to “pre-crime” pricing: charging more for risk patterns when there’s no accident history, though others note all insurance is probabilistic and already does this (e.g., smokers and life insurance).

Consent, privacy, and data selling

• Strong criticism of non-consensual or “fine-print” consent for data collection and resale.
• Multiple comments stress that data should not be collected or sold without explicit, informed opt-in.
• Worry that once data is sold to brokers and insurers, deletion is largely illusory.
• GM reportedly cut ties with two data brokers after lawsuits, but many argue the real fix is to stop collecting or sharing altogether.
• Some note it’s illegal in at least one state to use this data for insurance pricing.

Insurance pricing mechanics & anecdotes

• One explanation: telematics should not raise average rates, just redistribute them based on risk; aggregate costs (inflation, more accidents, expensive sensors, easier total-loss decisions) drive overall increases.
• Others report clean records but rising premiums attributed to “area costs,” or mileage inferred from service records sold to data brokers.
• Some users do see modest decreases, sometimes via age of vehicle or telematics-based programs, but note the tradeoff of constant surveillance anxiety.

What can consumers do?

• Suggestions: sue (class actions, Fair Credit–style reports via LexisNexis), shop around frequently, avoid connected cars, or buy/keep older vehicles.
• Technical ideas: pull fuses, disable cellular modules, use guides to disable “phone home” features, though long-term viability is unclear.
• Skepticism that “voting with your wallet” will work if all manufacturers adopt telemetry; calls for stronger consumer-protection and transparency laws.

Broader telemetry & road-usage tracking

• Parallel concerns about OBD dongles for insurance and EV registration discounts, where states or third parties track mileage instead of reading odometers.
• Debate over road-funding models: gas tax vs per-mile tracking vs weight/tire-based taxes, and whether fine-grained tracking is justified for a public good like roads.