GM OnStar Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward, Here Are Your Rights as a GM Driver

What is the GM OnStar class action lawsuit about?

The GM OnStar class action lawsuit alleges that General Motors secretly collected driving data through OnStar — including speed, location, and braking — and sold it to insurance companies without driver consent, causing insurance premiums to rise. A federal judge ruled in April 2026 that the core claims will proceed to trial.

If you drive a GM vehicle — a Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, or GMC — your car may have been quietly recording your driving behavior and selling that data to insurance companies without your knowledge. And if your insurance rates went up without any accidents or violations on your record, there is now a federal court saying you deserve your day in court.

On April 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the Northern District of Georgia issued a ruling that GM OnStar driving data collection claims will move forward. The judge maintained the core federal wiretapping allegations at the heart of the lawsuit — while dismissing 29 of the original 65 counts — rejecting GM’s attempt to have the entire case thrown out. This matters for millions of GM drivers. Here is what the ruling means, what claims survived, and what you can do right now.

What GM and OnStar Are Accused of Doing to Millions of Drivers

The story starts with a 2024 New York Times investigation that revealed something most GM drivers had no idea about. Their vehicles — equipped with OnStar since 2016 — were collecting highly detailed data about how they drove: hard braking events, hard acceleration, speed, location tracked as frequently as every three seconds, and even whether they drove late at night.

That data was sold to consumer reporting agencies LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk Analytics, which packaged it into driver behavior reports and sold those reports to auto insurance companies. Insurance companies then used the information to raise premiums — or in some cases, reject drivers outright — without those drivers ever being told why.

One GM customer in Florida alleged that GM and LexisNexis Risk Solutions violated privacy and consumer protection laws after sharing data collected through the OnStar Smart Driver program, which the customer claims he never enrolled in. The data sharing resulted in significantly elevated insurance premiums, and he was rejected by seven auto insurance companies before discovering that his driving habits had been shared with insurers.

In some instances, simply downloading a specific vehicle app — such as the myCadillac app — resulted in automatic OnStar driving data sharing, without the driver taking any steps to enroll in a data-sharing program.

The Federal Trade Commission took the situation seriously enough to act. On January 14, 2026, the FTC finalized a settlement order with GM and OnStar, alleging violations of the FTC Act — specifically that GM and OnStar gave consumers false assurance that driving data would only be used for their own safety, but instead sold that data to third parties including consumer reporting agencies, auto insurance companies, and others without appropriate notice or consent. Under that FTC order, GM and OnStar are banned from sharing driving data with consumer reporting agencies for five years.

The FTC settlement did not put money in drivers’ pockets. That is what the class-action lawsuit is for.

If you owned or leased a GM vehicle since 2016 and your insurance rates increased without explanation, speaking with a consumer rights attorney is worth your time — most offer a free legal consultation at no upfront cost.

What the April 2026 Court Ruling Actually Decided — Claims That Survived and Claims That Did Not

This is the ruling that changed everything for the litigation. Judge Thrash issued a 200-plus page opinion and order on April 22, 2026, after GM, OnStar, LexisNexis, and Verisk filed motions to have the entire case dismissed.

Judge Thrash issued a 200-plus page order that maintained the core federal wiretapping allegations while dismissing 29 of the 65 counts in the complaint. The ruling keeps alive claims that GM used onboard driver assistance devices as nodes in a massive data mining operation, then sold the information to insurance data firms that passed it along to carriers who raised premiums based on the reports.

Related article: Sony’s $7.85 Million PlayStation Settlement Who Qualifies, Key Dates, and How to Claim

Claims That Survived and Are Moving Forward

These are the claims the judge allowed to proceed — and they are the most significant ones for affected drivers:

• Federal Wiretap Act — the core claim that GM illegally intercepted electronic communications from drivers without consent
• Stored Communications Act — the claim that GM unlawfully accessed and stored electronic driving data it did not have authority to control
• Unjust enrichment — that GM and the data firms profited financially from data they had no right to monetize
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (partial) — that LexisNexis and Verisk produced inaccurate consumer reports using GM-supplied driving data
• Invasion of privacy (partial) and civil conspiracy (partial)

Judge Thrash also preserved the plaintiffs’ claim under the Stored Communications Act, ruling that it appeared from the allegations that GM — not drivers — largely controlled the operations and storage functions of the OnStar devices.

Claims That Were Dismissed

Judge Thrash did trim the case significantly. Claims dismissed outright include:

• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims
• California Consumer Privacy Act claims
• Trespass claims
• Several state law claims

GM had argued the lawsuit was what lawyers call a “shotgun pleading” — an attempt to throw everything at a defendant and see what sticks. The judge rejected that argument, writing that the complaint did not contain conclusory, vague, or immaterial facts, and instead properly detailed the factual background for the plaintiffs’ claims.

What GM Argued — and Why the Judge Disagreed

GM’s defense rested on an unusual legal theory. GM’s attorney argued that “no court has ever applied the Federal Wiretap Act this way” — specifically contending that driving a vehicle does not result in a “communication” with “contents,” and that GM was a party to these transmissions and therefore could not “intercept” a communication to itself. Judge Thrash disagreed.

Plaintiffs’ counsel put it plainly. Roy E. Barnes of the Barnes Law Group argued that OnStar was pitched as a driver assistance tool, not a surveillance system — “It’s about the right you have to drive a car and not snoop on you, and make money off that snooping.”

Your Legal Rights as a GM Vehicle Owner Whose Data Was Collected

The 627-page consolidated complaint alleged GM gathered data about drivers without their knowledge, then sold that information to third parties such as insurance companies, which then raised their rates. The ruling allowed claims to go forward against the credit reporting agencies that received driver data from GM: LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk Analytics.

If you owned or leased a GM vehicle equipped with OnStar between 2016 and 2024, you have specific legal rights in this litigation.

You have the right to be part of the class action. The case is proceeding as a proposed nationwide class on behalf of an estimated 16 million drivers. You do not need to have filed your own lawsuit to potentially be included — but you should speak with a consumer rights attorney to understand your specific eligibility.

You have the right to seek compensation for damages. The lawsuit seeks actual damages for increased insurance premiums, statutory damages under the Federal Wiretap Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act, punitive damages for willful misconduct, and injunctive relief requiring GM to stop the offending practices and delete improperly collected data.

You have the right to demand your data. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681g), you have the right to request your consumer disclosure report from LexisNexis and Verisk. If GM shared your driving data with these agencies, a record likely exists. Requesting it is free and can reveal exactly what was reported about your driving behavior.

You have the right to know what data was collected. The FTC’s finalized consent order requires GM and OnStar to clearly disclose its data collection practices going forward and obtain proper consumer consent. Read out Article on Roblox consumer data privacy rights and how to protect yourself

A data privacy attorney can review your situation — including your LexisNexis report and your insurance rate history — and tell you in a single consultation whether you have a viable claim. Most offer a free legal consultation with no obligation.

How to Document Your GM OnStar Data Privacy Claim Right Now

Evidence is what transforms a grievance into a legal claim. Here is what you need to gather if you believe GM’s data collection affected your insurance rates or privacy.

Request your LexisNexis consumer disclosure report. Under the FCRA, LexisNexis is required to provide you a free copy of any consumer report it has prepared about you. Visit the LexisNexis consumer center or call their disclosure request line. This report will show whether GM-supplied driving data appears in your file and what it says.

Request your Verisk driving data report. Verisk Analytics similarly maintains driving behavior reports. Contact Verisk’s consumer division to request your file. One driver, after requesting his LexisNexis report, received a 258-page document detailing his driving behavior captured through OnStar — data he never agreed to share.

Document your insurance premium history. Pull records of every insurance rate change you experienced from 2016 onward. Note dates, premium amounts, and whether you received any explanation for increases. If your rates went up without any accidents, claims, or violations, that pattern is directly relevant to this litigation.

Keep records of any insurance denials or rejections. If any insurer denied coverage or declined to quote you during the period when GM was sharing data, document it. Several plaintiffs in the master complaint were rejected by multiple insurance companies after their OnStar data was reported.

What Happens Next in the GM OnStar Lawsuit

The case is now in the discovery phase, where both sides gather evidence, take depositions, and build their factual records. Fact discovery is anticipated to begin in mid-2025 and is projected to continue into late 2026, laying the groundwork for trial or settlement.

Co-lead counsel Norman Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson said the plaintiffs are “eager to move the case forward on behalf of the class.”

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) as part of MDL No. 3115, In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, Case 1:24-md-03115-TWT. Multiple state attorneys general — including those of Texas and Arkansas — have filed separate state-level actions against GM and OnStar over the same conduct, adding additional legal pressure.

What this means practically: the litigation is serious, it is moving, and the window to be part of the class has not closed. If you qualify, now is the time to act — not after a settlement is announced, when options become more limited.

Frequently Asked Questions About the GM OnStar Class Action Lawsuit

What is the statute of limitations for filing a claim related to GM OnStar data collection?

 The Federal Wiretap Act carries a two-year statute of limitations from the time a plaintiff discovers the violation. For many drivers, the clock started running in 2024 when the data-selling practices became public. Do not wait — contact a consumer rights attorney now to evaluate your specific timeline and eligibility.

How long will the GM OnStar class action lawsuit take to resolve?

 Discovery is projected to run through late 2026, with trial preparation following. Mass tort litigation of this scale — involving 16 million potential class members and multiple corporate defendants — typically takes several years to reach resolution. However, defendants sometimes settle before trial to avoid jury verdicts, which could come sooner.

Do I need a lawyer to join the GM OnStar class action, and how much does it cost?

 You do not need to hire a lawyer independently to be included in a class action — class members are typically included automatically if they meet the criteria. However, speaking with a consumer rights attorney helps you understand your specific rights and whether an individual claim might yield more than a class payout. Most attorneys handling these cases work on a contingency fee basis — no cost to you unless they win.

Which GM vehicles are covered in the OnStar driving data lawsuit?

 The lawsuit covers GM-manufactured vehicles equipped with OnStar, which has been integrated into GM vehicles since 2016. Affected brands include Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC. If you owned or leased any of these vehicles from 2016 through 2024, your driving data may have been collected and shared.

What happened to the FTC action against GM and OnStar — and does it affect my lawsuit? 

The FTC finalized its consent order against GM and OnStar on January 14, 2026, resulting in a five-year ban on sharing driving data with consumer reporting agencies. The FTC action did not provide compensation to individual drivers — that is what the civil class-action lawsuit is designed to do. The two actions are separate.

What exactly does the Federal Wiretap Act say about collecting data without consent? 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, it is unlawful to intentionally intercept, use, or disclose any wire, oral, or electronic communication without consent of the parties involved. Plaintiffs argue GM’s collection of real-time driving data through OnStar constitutes unlawful interception of electronic communications. Judge Thrash agreed this claim has sufficient legal basis to proceed.

How much compensation could GM OnStar class members receive in a settlement? 

It is too early to project settlement amounts. The Federal Wiretap Act provides for statutory damages of at least $100 per day per violation, up to $10,000, regardless of actual losses — plus punitive damages and attorney fees. In similar data privacy class actions, individual payouts have ranged from small amounts to several hundred dollars, depending on the case’s outcome and class size.

Legal Terms Used in This Article

Federal Wiretap Act: A federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511) that makes it illegal to intentionally intercept electronic communications without consent. Plaintiffs argue GM’s OnStar system did exactly this by capturing driving data without driver knowledge or permission.

Stored Communications Act: A federal law that protects electronic data stored by third parties. The judge preserved this claim, ruling that GM — not drivers — appeared to largely control the storage functions of OnStar devices.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA): A federal law (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) governing how consumer reporting agencies collect and use personal data. Drivers have the right under FCRA to request their consumer disclosure reports from LexisNexis and Verisk for free.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL): A federal procedure that consolidates similar cases from different courts into one court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The GM OnStar cases were consolidated into MDL No. 3115 in the Northern District of Georgia.

Contingency Fee: A payment arrangement where the attorney only gets paid if the case results in a financial recovery. You pay nothing upfront. This is the standard fee arrangement for class-action consumer rights cases like this one.

Unjust Enrichment: A legal claim that a defendant unfairly profited at the plaintiff’s expense. Here, plaintiffs argue GM and the data firms made money selling data that belonged to drivers without compensating those drivers or getting their consent.

Punitive Damages: Extra money courts can award — beyond actual losses — to punish especially harmful conduct. In cases involving willful privacy violations, courts have discretion to add punitive damages on top of any compensatory award.

You Have Rights and the GM OnStar Lawsuit Is the Vehicle to Enforce Them

A federal judge has now confirmed that the core claims against GM, OnStar, LexisNexis, and Verisk are legally sound and will proceed. If your insurance rates went up, if you were rejected by an insurer, or if you simply owned a GM vehicle between 2016 and 2024 and never consented to your driving data being sold — you may have a claim.

The case is moving forward and the discovery phase is underway. If you are a GM driver who believes your data privacy rights were violated, now is the time to get the right legal representation on your side.

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official federal court filings (MDL No. 3115, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia), FTC consent order records, and verified legal reporting from Law360, Bloomberg Law, and AboutLawsuits.com. Last Updated: May 3, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and individual circumstances differ. For advice regarding your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney licensed in your state.