GM Pays 220 Million to Settle Driver Data Privacy Claims
Left 67%
Center 33%
Right 0%
2 left · 1 center · 0 right
What happened
General Motors agreed to pay $220 million to settle claims by a coalition of 36 U.S. attorneys general that it sold driver behavior and location data collected through its Smart Driver program to data brokers. The program, discontinued by GM in 2024, tracked habits such as acceleration, braking, and trip length. The settlement requires GM to obtain express consent before collecting or sharing driving and location data, limit the data it collects, and have a third party assess its privacy compliance. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-led the coalition. GM said the agreement addresses the ended Smart Driver product and that it has strengthened its privacy practices.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Oregon AG Dan Rayfield, Charlotte McCoy, Oregon Attorney General, Washington DC Attorney General, General Motors and attorneys general from 36 states
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 29, 19:19 UTC by The Verge, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so a reader on that side would miss GM's settlement over sold driving and location data entirely. Left-leaning coverage reports that GM will pay $220 million to a coalition of attorneys general. Some drivers paid higher premiums after that data reached insurers, according to The Verge. Express consent before collection is required in The Verge's account of the deal.
Left-leaning coverage disagrees on who bought the driving data from GM. Data brokers stand in the middle at The Verge, while The Hill describes a sale to insurance companies. That difference changes whether GM is described as selling straight to the firms that set rates.
Will any of that money go to the drivers whose premiums rose?
Bottom line
A right-leaning reader would miss GM's $220 million driver-data settlement altogether. Even The Verge and The Hill cannot agree on whether insurers bought that data from GM or from brokers.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- GM will pay $220 million to settle claims it sold driving and location data
- The settlement newly requires a third party to assess GM's privacy-program compliance
- The FTC finalized an order in January banning GM and OnStar from sharing certain consumer data
- States accused GM of failing to notify drivers they were enrolled in Smart Driver
- GM may still disclose anonymized data not tied to an individual
- Driving data reached data brokers LexisNexis and Verisk
The Left View
The Verge, The Hill, and TechCrunch report that GM will pay $220 million to resolve allegations it sold driving-habits and location data without proper notice or consent, allowing insurers to obtain the information and potentially raise premiums. They quote Oregon AG Dan Rayfield saying people bought a car, not a tracking device, and that GM sold data despite promising not to share it with insurers without permission. Coverage notes the bipartisan AG coalition, GM’s prior $12.75 million California settlement and an FTC order, a New York Times investigation more than two years earlier, and GM’s statement that it ended Smart Driver and is committed to clearer privacy practices and customer choices. Framing focuses on unauthorized collection via the connected-car feature and resulting consumer harms.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on a named $220 million settlement with 36 attorneys general, a specific discontinued product (Smart Driver), prior FTC and California actions, and a referenced New York Times investigation. Established facts include the payment, the consent and data-limitation terms, the third-party compliance assessment requirement, GM’s 2024 discontinuation of Smart Driver, and GM’s public statement. The original claims of unauthorized sales and higher insurance premiums were allegations resolved by the settlement and are not independently adjudicated as proven in these reports. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch next for the full settlement documents, third-party compliance assessments, and any further official responses from GM or the attorneys general.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.