[Deacon Blues]

Originally Posted by Camfab

So the bigger question or maybe I should say another question is……. Are these other metrics as in engine data being stored and utilized to deny warranty claims and most importantly will removing the OnStar board from the vehicle be a cause for warranty denial?

I believe so (not so much the removal of the onstar unit, but the data recorded in the vehicle being used to deny a claim). When I picked up my car (bought new out of state back in October), the sales manager advised me that I needed to follow the break in procedure protocol, especially not exceeding the 85 mph or rev limit. She claimed that they had people make warranty claims and were denied based on data recorded.



Now, this was part of a general conversation about how I was glad to find what I was looking for new after struggling to find a used Camaro that hadn't been abused, so take that for what you will.

[CamaroRSOnt]

Here are the "uses" for OnStar data on this link - GM has pretty well covered all the bases. Don't doubt if you disconnect the unit and need some warranty work there could be some questions arise from that... it specifically states data is tracked "for warranty administration and validation"


https://www.onstar.com/content/dam/o...statement.html


Didn't have the conversation on break in on my Camaro but when I bought my C7 'Vette I was told that they could track the vehicle data and GM expected customers to adhere to the break in requirements. I did follow those requirements, no doubt they know everything about how you drove the car during that period.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Camfab

So the bigger question or maybe I should say another question is……. Are these other metrics as in engine data being stored and utilized to deny warranty claims and most importantly will removing the OnStar board from the vehicle be a cause for warranty denial?

Pretty sure they have denied warranty by checking the data and seeing someone money shifted and overreved the car. In that case I don't think we can ***** and moan when that happens. This is a car with a track warranty and for the most part dealers have honored the warranty when something failed on track as long as it wasn't a timed event and the vehicle was stock. I don't think GM can deny the warranty if someone's engine blew up during a pull. If we aren't supposed to rev the motor to 6500 rpm then why does the car's pcm allow it in the first place would be my argument.

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by CamaroRSOnt

Just an update , might see it on other threads. As of March 20th GM announced they have cut ties with the two companies who were reselling customer data to insurance companies.



GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash

Customers, wittingly or not, had their driving data shared with insurers.

Jonathan M. Gitlin - 3/22/2024, 4:23 PM

After public outcry, General Motors has decided to stop sharing driving data from its connected cars with data brokers. Last week, news broke that customers enrolled in GM's OnStar Smart Driver app have had their data shared with LexisNexis and Verisk.

Those data brokers in turn shared the information with insurance companies, resulting in some drivers finding it much harder or more expensive to obtain insurance. To make matters much worse, customers allege they never signed up for OnStar Smart Driver in the first place, claiming the choice was made for them by salespeople during the car-buying process.

Now, in what feels like an all-too-rare win for privacy in the 21st century, that data-sharing deal is no more.

"As of March 20th, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk. Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies," GM told us in a statement.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03...amid-backlash/

That right there: Means GM is not liable for that law suit. It means those 3rd party companies did so without "GM's Knowledge"

That law suit will fail, unless it is dropped and re-centered towards those two 3rd party companies responsible for selling that data to Insurers.

The real question I have to ask is who is ultimately responsible? Is it the broker's or is it Insurance companies violating privacy laws to charge consumers more money? If the latter that is a HUGE HUGE law suit waiting to happen.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

That right there: Means GM is not liable for that law suit. It means those 3rd party companies did so without "GM's Knowledge"

That law suit will fail, unless it is dropped and re-centered towards those two 3rd party companies responsible for selling that data to Insurers.

The real question I have to ask is who is ultimately responsible? Is it the broker's or is it Insurance companies violating privacy laws to charge consumers more money? If the latter that is a HUGE HUGE law suit waiting to happen.

LOL, I hope you’re kidding. Please show me where I agreed to GM selling my data to anyone. I’ll wait. I bought my car new and never agreed to any Onstar BS and sure as heck did not sign anything.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

That right there: Means GM is not liable for that law suit. It means those 3rd party companies did so without "GM's Knowledge"

That law suit will fail, unless it is dropped and re-centered towards those two 3rd party companies responsible for selling that data to Insurers.

The real question I have to ask is who is ultimately responsible? Is it the broker's or is it Insurance companies violating privacy laws to charge consumers more money? If the latter that is a HUGE HUGE law suit waiting to happen.

Those kinds of relationships are contractual. The immediate termination to me says corporate legal pulled the plug on it for a number of reasons, one of which could be a corporate "oh shit" moment, also for various reasons.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

LOL, I hope you’re kidding. Please show me where I agreed to GM selling my data to anyone. I’ll wait. I bought my car new and never agreed to any Onstar BS and sure as heck did not sign anything.

If you did anything OR it was done on your behalf by a salesperson setting up your free trial, it was in the fine print. This is my issue, not that data is being brokered (it is all the time when I use my phone or computer so that is undeniable) but the lack of transparency of whether you are in or out. Anyone get an email that shows the status of whether you clicked yes but meant no? Or simply a “welcome to our data collecting plan”. As I’ve mentioned going through this with my VW right now and I have read the fine print and it’s scary.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by Number 3

If you did anything OR it was done on your behalf by a salesperson setting up your free trial, it was in the fine print. This is my issue, not that data is being brokered (it is all the time when I use my phone or computer so that is undeniable) but the lack of transparency of whether you are in or out. Anyone get an email that shows the status of whether you clicked yes but meant no? Or simply a “welcome to our data collecting plan”. As I’ve mentioned going through this with my VW right now and I have read the fine print and it’s scary.

You could be right, which further makes my point. GM is not allowed to get me to waive my rights before I was aware of what they were. So if a salesman just did it, they’re 100% guilty. GM would need to prove they specifically instructed them not to do that, which I would bet real money they didn’t do. Inducing a customer to waive their rights is an arduous process, not one a salesman can just sign off for you on.

[Hyperion]

Imagine being such a brand loyalist idiot that you defend GM for violating your privacy rights. GTFO of here with that BS. I'm joining the class action lawsuit. Screw GM, Lexis Nexus and the insurance companies. Stop simping and stand up for your rights you bootlicking pussies.

[Hyperion]

"Oh nooo if the box is checked it means you have no rights and are essentially a serf now." Absolute brainlet take, you can't sign away your constitutional rights.