Master Complaint for GM OnStar Lawsuits Filed Over Driving Data Tracking and Collection

Lawsuit claims GM’s OnStar violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, seeking damages for owners of GMC, Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac vehicles.

As a growing number of GM OnStar lawsuits continue to be filed for owners of GMC, Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac vehicles, alleging that the automaker illegally collected and sold data on their driving activities, plaintiffs have filed a “Master Complaint” outlining all of the common allegations raised in the litigation, which could pave the way for more expedited filing of future class action complaints.

The General Motors OnStar system has been included in millions of new vehicles sold in recent years, and was promoted as a means of providing automatic crash response, roadside assistance, stolen vehicle tracking, navigation and other connectivity features.

However, lawsuits indicate that neither GM nor OnStar told vehicle owners that the system would collect data on their driving habits, which could be used by insurance companies to raise their rates.

Earlier this year, The New York Times published a report revealing that General Motors’ OnStar systems were collecting data on consumers’ driving activities without their knowledge, including acceleration habits, hard braking events and GPS data. The report indicated the companies then sold this data to LexisNexis and Verisk, who in turn provided that data to insurance companies without the vehicle owners’ permission.

Since then, several dozen OnStar class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide, which have been centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia under District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

In October, Judge Thrash issued a scheduling order that called for plaintiffs to file a Master Complaint (PDF) by December 13, which outlines all of the allegations raised in the litigation.

Master Complaints are a common part of the pretrial process in complex product liability lawsuits, where large numbers of individuals are pursuing similar claims. It allows the parties to focus motions and pretrial proceedings on factual and legal claims that are repeated throughout a number of different lawsuits, and may also allow plaintiffs to bring future lawsuits through a Short Form Complaint, where they adopt common allegations and add in any case-specific information.

The Master Complaint for the GM OnStar lawsuits includes a host of claims, including allegations that the defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act, The Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as invasion of privacy, conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and trespass to chattels for the national class, as well as dozens of violations to various state consumer protection laws.

“Over the course of nearly a decade, and in willful disregard of consumers across the United States, GM amassed petabytes of at least 16 million consumers’ Driving Data covering billions of miles of trips, and sold that data to Verisk, LexisNexis, and other third parties to advance Defendants’ commercial interests—always in a manner that they knew would materially invade consumers’ privacy and harm them financially,” the Master Complaint states. “Plaintiffs are among the millions of consumers whose Driving Data was collected, transmitted and exploited by Defendants without their knowledge and consent.”

GM OnStar Lawsuit Early Discovery Request Filed

While Judge Thrash originally called for the filing of a proposed discovery order 60 days after the Master Complaint was filed, plaintiffs also filed a motion (PDF) on December 13, alongside the Master Complaint, requesting the judge allow limited early discovery.

The plaintiffs indicate this will help them to preserve relevant information being held by third parties, as well as documents and other information given to the Defendants by various regulatory bodies, such as state insurance commissioners, and permitting the plaintiffs to issue initial discovery requests.

Plaintiffs say the early discovery will help frame the scope of the litigation, and would impose no burden on the Defendants.

GM Onstar lawyers met with Judge Thrash for a case status conference on December 18, 2024, according to minutes (PDF) posted by the court. In addition to reviewing the recently filed Master Complaint, the parties also presented arguments on a pending motion to allow plaintiffs to serve preservation subpoenas to entities with relevant evidence, and discussed a briefing schedule for the pending motion to allow limited early discovery.

As part of the coordinated management of the litigation, it is expected that Judge Thrash will establish a “bellwether” program, where a small group of representative cases may be selected to go through case-specific discovery in preparation for early trial dates, which will help the parties gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout various cases in the litigation.

While the outcome of these early trial dates will not be binding on other claims in the litigation, the average lawsuit payouts may influence eventual OnStar settlement negotiations that will be necessary to avoid each individual case being set for trial in the coming years.

The next status conference in the GM OnStar lawsuits is scheduled for February 4, 2025.