GM OnStar Data Settlement: $220M Deal, No Driver Payments

RALEIGH, N.C. — Nov. 7, 2026 — General Motors has agreed to pay $220 million to settle claims by a bipartisan coalition of 36 attorneys general that it secretly collected and sold drivers’ location and driving-behavior data through its OnStar Smart Driver program, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced on Oct. 30, 2026. The states allege that from 2016 to 2024, GM enrolled millions of drivers, often at the dealership and sometimes without their knowledge, then sold data on hard braking, speeding and late-night driving to data brokers that passed it to insurers.

For drivers, the most important detail is what the settlement does not include: individual payments. The $220 million is paid to the participating states, and none of the announcements describe a claims process. GM said in a statement that “this agreement addresses Smart Driver, a product we ended in 2024,” and that it has strengthened its privacy practices, according to Nexstar’s WATE. GM resolved the claims by agreement, without a court finding on the allegations.

Key Takeaways

$220 million to the states: GM settled with 36 attorneys general (35 states plus the District of Columbia) over OnStar Smart Driver data sales. The money goes to state governments, not drivers.
No claim form: No announcement describes a consumer claims process. Be wary of sites asking for payment or personal details to “claim” money from this settlement.
New consent rules: GM must get express consent before collecting or sharing driving and location data, limit what it collects and run a privacy program with dealership oversight.
A separate FTC order already applies: The FTC’s final order (Jan. 14, 2026) bars GM from sharing driving data with consumer reporting agencies for five years and lets consumers request deletion.
Private lawsuits continue: In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation in federal court in Atlanta could still produce compensation for drivers. Most claims there survived a motion to dismiss in April 2026.
You can check your file: The Fair Credit Reporting Act lets consumers request what specialty consumer reporting agencies hold about them.

Quick Answer

General Motors agreed in late October 2026 to pay $220 million to a coalition of 36 state attorneys general to resolve claims that it collected and sold OnStar Smart Driver data without drivers’ consent. The money goes to the states, not to individual drivers, and no claim process exists. Drivers can still request their driving-data files from consumer reporting agencies, ask GM to delete their data under a separate FTC order, and follow pending private class actions.

What Happened

The North Carolina Department of Justice announced the settlement on Oct. 30, 2026, on behalf of a coalition that includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawai’i, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The agreement is in the form of a consent judgment.

“General Motors told drivers it would keep their data private – it lied,” Jackson said in the release. “Your data belongs to you, and you should be able to decide when and how it’s shared.” North Carolina’s share is $7,657,771.

The allegations

According to the attorneys general, GM:

Enrolled drivers through dealerships, sometimes without consent, while giving dealers incentives tied to enrollment numbers.
Tracked driving behavior, including hard braking and acceleration, driving over 80 mph and late-night driving.
Told drivers it would not share data with insurers without express consent, then sold driving and location data to third parties and data brokers that sold it to insurers, which used it to set premiums.
Told more than 370,000 drivers they were not enrolled when they were, then quietly unenrolled them without disclosing the error, leaving their data with brokers and insurers.

GM discontinued Smart Driver in 2024 after The New York Times reported on the practices, the North Carolina release says. These are allegations resolved by settlement. GM did not admit them in court.

How many drivers were affected

None of the primary announcements reviewed for this article gives a verified national count. Connecticut’s attorney general has put the number of affected Americans at more than 10.2 million, Yahoo Finance reported. The FTC said in 2025 that GM collected data from “millions of vehicles,” in some cases recording geolocation every three seconds.

What the Settlement Requires

Beyond the payment, the consent judgment requires GM to:

Get express consent before collecting or disclosing driving and location data.
Limit the driving data it collects (data minimization).
Maintain a comprehensive data privacy program, which the National Law Review reports includes a chief privacy officer and data protection assessments before new high-risk processing.
Provide dealership oversight and training so customers are not enrolled without their consent.

At a Glance: Three Separate Legal Tracks

The GM driving-data dispute has produced three separate legal actions. Only one of them could result in money paid directly to drivers.

Table 1. State, federal and private actions over GM driving data
Action	Who brought it	Status	Money to drivers?
Multistate consent judgment	36 attorneys general (35 states + D.C.)	Announced Oct. 29-30, 2026; $220 million plus conduct terms	No. Paid to states
FTC order (No. 242-3052)	Federal Trade Commission	Final order approved Jan. 14, 2026; 20-year term	No. Conduct-only order
In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03115	Private plaintiffs (consolidated class actions)	Pending in N.D. Ga.; most claims survived motions to dismiss in April 2026	Possible, if plaintiffs win or settle
*Texas v. General Motors*	Texas Attorney General	Filed separately in 2024; Texas is not in the coalition	Not stated

The Law Behind the Case

State consumer protection laws

State attorneys general typically bring privacy cases like this under their unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, such as North Carolina’s N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce. The core theory is deception: telling consumers their data would not be shared with insurers without consent while selling it.

The FTC Act

The FTC’s case relied on Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The FTC announced a proposed order on Jan. 16, 2025 and finalized it on Jan. 14, 2026 by a 2-0 vote. The final order:

Bars GM for five years from disclosing geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies. The FTC called this “fencing-in relief” justified by “GM’s egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust.”
Requires affirmative express consent before collecting, using or sharing connected vehicle data, for the order’s 20-year term, with exceptions such as sharing location with emergency responders.
Gives all U.S. consumers a way to request a copy of their data and ask for its deletion.
Lets consumers disable precise geolocation collection where the vehicle supports it, and opt out of geolocation and driver behavior collection with limited exceptions.

Federal privacy and credit reporting laws in the private cases

Private plaintiffs have sued GM, OnStar, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk in a multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash in the Northern District of Georgia. On April 22, 2026, Judge Thrash largely denied motions to dismiss, allowing claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, and parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims to proceed, along with unjust enrichment and parts of the invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy claims, according to plaintiffs’ co-counsel DiCello Levitt. That account comes from one side of the case. The defendants deny the claims.

Timeline

Table 2. Key dates in the GM driving-data cases
Date	Event
2016-2024	Period in which the states allege GM enrolled drivers in Smart Driver and sold data
2024	GM discontinues Smart Driver; Texas sues GM separately; private class actions are consolidated in N.D. Ga.
Jan. 16, 2025	FTC announces proposed order against GM and OnStar
Jan. 14, 2026	FTC approves final order (2-0 vote)
April 22, 2026	Judge Thrash largely denies motions to dismiss in the private MDL
Oct. 29-30, 2026	36 attorneys general announce the $220 million settlement
Pending	Private MDL continues; any class settlement or judgment could include driver compensation

Who Is Affected

GM vehicle owners and lessees with OnStar from 2016 to 2024, especially those enrolled in Smart Driver at a dealership.
Drivers who were told they were not enrolled. The states say more than 370,000 drivers fall into this group.
Drivers whose insurance rates rose after an insurer relied on a consumer report that included driving data.
Residents of the 36 participating jurisdictions, whose states receive the settlement money. Texas residents are covered by Texas’s separate lawsuit, not this settlement.

What Drivers Can Do Now

This section is general information, not legal advice. Anyone who believes they were harmed should consider speaking with a licensed attorney.

Request your consumer report files. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g, consumer reporting agencies must disclose the information in your file on request, and § 1681j entitles you to a free annual disclosure from nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. Look for trip-level or driving-behavior entries tied to your vehicle.
Keep insurance letters. If an insurer raised your rate or denied coverage based on a consumer report, 15 U.S.C. § 1681m generally requires an adverse action notice naming the reporting agency. That notice can be important evidence. Our digital evidence checklist explains how to preserve records.
Ask GM for your data, or ask it to delete it. The FTC order requires GM to give U.S. consumers a way to request a copy of their data and its deletion. Yahoo Finance reports GM’s privacy line is 1-866-697-7482. Our guide to data removal requests covers how to word a request and track the response.
Check your vehicle settings. Where the hardware allows, the FTC order requires GM to let drivers turn off precise geolocation collection.
Watch the private litigation. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached in the MDL, court-approved notices will explain eligibility. Verify any notice before responding. Our guide on verifying a data breach or settlement letter shows how.
Avoid “claim” scams. There is no official claim form for the $220 million state settlement. Do not pay anyone or share account details to “claim” it. See our Scams & Fraud coverage for common warning signs.

What Happens Next

Each participating state will handle its share of the $220 million under its own law, which often means general funds or consumer protection programs. GM’s compliance with the consent judgment and the FTC order will be monitored by the states and the FTC, respectively. The biggest open question for drivers is the private multidistrict litigation in Atlanta, where claims against GM and the data brokers are moving forward.

Cyber Law Institute will update this article if a claims process, class settlement or court ruling affects drivers. Readers with information about connected-car data practices can reach our newsroom through the Submit a Tip page. More coverage is in our Privacy Rights and Lawsuits & Settlements sections, and in the weekly Cyber Law Brief newsletter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will GM owners get money from the $220 million OnStar settlement?

No individual payments have been announced. The $220 million is paid to the 36 participating attorneys general, and none of the announcements describe a claims process for drivers. Separate private class actions against GM, OnStar, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk are still pending and could produce compensation if the plaintiffs win or settle.

What was GM’s OnStar Smart Driver program?

Smart Driver was an OnStar feature that tracked driving behavior such as hard braking, rapid acceleration, speeding over 80 mph and late-night driving. The states allege GM sold that data, along with location data, to brokers that passed it to insurers. GM ended Smart Driver in 2024.

Which states are part of the GM data settlement?

The coalition includes 35 states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawai’i, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Texas filed its own lawsuit.

How is the state settlement different from the FTC order against GM?

The state settlement includes a $220 million payment and requires express consent, data minimization, a privacy program and dealership oversight. The FTC’s final order, approved Jan. 14, 2026, includes no payment but bars GM for five years from sharing driving data with consumer reporting agencies and lets consumers request access to or deletion of their data.

How can I find out if my driving data was sold to my insurer?

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you can request the information a consumer reporting agency holds about you, including a free annual disclosure from nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. If an insurer took adverse action based on a consumer report, it generally must send a notice naming the reporting agency.

Can I still sue GM over OnStar data sharing?

Private claims are being litigated in In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03115, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Whether a particular person can bring or join a claim depends on their facts and deadlines, so anyone considering legal action should speak with a licensed attorney.

Sources

This article is general information, not legal advice. Cyber Law Institute is an independent publication, not a law firm or a lawyer referral service, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Allegations described here were resolved by settlement or remain unproven in court. See our Legal Disclaimer, Editorial Standards, Methodology and Corrections Policy.

The Cyber Law Brief

Get practical guides like this in your inbox

Weekly reporting. No noise. Unsubscribe anytime. Privacy Policy.

GM’s $220 Million OnStar Data Settlement: Why Drivers Won’t Get Checks and What They Can Do Instead

Quick Answer