GM Gets Sued over Selling Your Driving Data as it Argues that Public Roads are not Private

Publisher's note: Why we wrote this story?

The data capture in the EV ecosystem is getting scary.

GM is being sued over the fact that it has been selling driving data without proper consent- or any consent. It is arguing that driving on Public Roads involves conduct that takes place on public roads—cannot form the basis for any privacy-based claim.” GM has filed to dismiss the case stating that “states do not permit invasion of privacy claims that are based on public conduct”. But Sate laws vary and the argument may or may not be valid.

This legal battle is not just about who owns the data, but about the very nature of privacy in a world where surveillance is increasingly pervasive. GM’s defense leans heavily on a 2015 court decision, which ruled that surveillance on public roadways by a drone did not violate an individual’s privacy. According to GM, since these driving behaviors occur in public, they are effectively observed by all, thus rendering privacy protections less applicable.

In response, the plaintiffs have broadened their allegations, claiming violations of multiple federal laws. They argue that GM's data collection practices violate the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. GM, along with its data partners, has filed a 111-page motion seeking to dismiss the case, stating that the data collection was lawful and transparent, especially given the discontinuation of its Smart Driver program in April 2024, which was previously gathering this information.

The Legal Debate: Privacy vs. Public Observation

The core of GM’s defense is rooted in the idea that public behavior, including driving, is observable by anyone, including law enforcement, pedestrians, and other drivers. From this standpoint, GM and its data partners argue that the collection and sale of driving data from public roads fall within established legal precedent. Courts have consistently upheld that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to behavior on public thoroughfares. If this case proceeds, it will force a broader debate about the limits of public observation in the digital age.

But the plaintiffs argue that today’s level of surveillance is far more intrusive than traditional public observation. In years past, a police officer had to witness a violation of traffic laws before issuing a ticket, which could then be contested in court. Now, however, every action taken while driving, whether intentional or not, can be logged, transmitted, and sold to third parties like insurance companies. This data could potentially impact things like insurance rates or even contribute to law enforcement investigations, all without a formal citation or an individual’s knowledge of the transaction.

The plaintiffs' concerns echo a growing fear: in a world where every move is potentially monitored, what is the point of driving if the data you generate is used against you? The lawsuit underscores the power shift from individuals to corporations that control vast troves of personal data.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Driving?

The issue at the heart of the lawsuit is not just legal but philosophical: in an age where technology allows for the collection of vast amounts of data, where do we draw the line between legitimate business practices and privacy violations? If automakers can track and sell every movement on the road, does it mean we lose the ability to maintain some degree of personal autonomy when behind the wheel?

GM’s defense points out that the data collection is not new and that its Smart Driver program, which was active for several years, was transparently marketed. Yet, the issue remains: just because data collection is widespread and legal, does that justify its commercialization? And even more critically, should consumers be given more control over the data generated by their vehicles?

As the legal proceedings unfold, this case could set important precedents for how driving data is treated in the digital age. It raises crucial questions about consent, privacy, and the power of corporations to control data that is inherently tied to personal freedom. Will privacy protections evolve to reflect the modern realities of data collection, or will this case highlight the continued erosion of personal privacy in the name of technological progress?

For now, GM and its data partners continue to argue that their practices are legal and transparent. But for the plaintiffs, this lawsuit is about more than just a technicality—it’s about reclaiming control over the information that’s generated by their everyday actions and ensuring that they, not corporations, maintain the rights to their data.

For more updates and insights on the EV industry, stay informed with our latest articles and subscribe to our newsletter at ChargedUpPro.com/subscribe.

About Us

Charged UP! is one of the most widely read publications in the EV charging space. Our approach is to take topics that are of interest to everyone and mention companies that provide best-in-class approaches. To discuss including your products or services, contact us at info@chargeduppro.com.

At Charged Up!, we are committed to keeping businesses and individuals informed about the evolving EV landscape. For more updates and insights, subscribe to our newsletter at chargeduppro.com/subscribe.