Court Rules
All enforcement actions
Consent DecreeLow Risk

FTC Bars GM, OnStar from Selling Vehicle Data Without Consent

General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, and OnStar, LLCJanuary 14, 2026Federal Trade Commission

Summary

Privacy enforcement action where the FTC settled with General Motors and OnStar for collecting and selling consumers' geolocation and driving behavior data without adequate notice or consent. The order prohibits sharing data with consumer reporting agencies and requires transparency and consumer choice measures.

Remedy

GM is banned from disclosing consumers' geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years. For 20 years, GM must obtain affirmative consent before collecting or sharing connected vehicle data, provide data access and deletion options, allow disabling geolocation collection, and offer opt-out capabilities with limited exceptions.

InjunctionConsent DecreeCompliance ProgramData DeletionBan

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review customer-facing agreements (e.g., vehicle purchase/lease agreements, OnStar subscription terms) and vendor/data sharing agreements to ensure they contain clear, unambiguous clauses regarding the collection, use, and sale of sensitive geolocation and driving behavior data. Specific clauses to scrutinize include those governing consumer consent (requiring affirmative, not implied, consent), third-party data sharing (especially prohibitions on sharing with consumer reporting agencies), data transparency obligations (disclosing what data is collected and for what purposes), and consumer choice mechanisms (opt-out rights). Agreements may need amendments to explicitly list geolocation and driver behavior data as sensitive, mandate separate consent for their sale, restrict sharing with consumer reporting agencies, and provide layered, conspicuous privacy notices.

Contract Search Terms

geolocation data consentdriving behavior data sharingaffirmative consent mechanismconsumer reporting agency data sharing prohibitionconnected vehicle data transparencyopt-out mechanismdata processing addendumprivacy notice requirementsthird-party data sharing clausedata minimization

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, and OnStar, LLC

Also known as: General Motors

Industry

Automotive

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, and OnStar, LLC (collectively GM)"
Violation Types
"collected, used, and sold consumers’ precise geolocation data and driving behavior data from millions of vehicles without adequately notifying consumers and obtaining their affirmative consent."

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.

FTC

Online platforms

The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.

FTC

Amazon.com, Inc.

$2.5B

A federal court approved a revised order in the FTC's Amazon Prime case under which Amazon will accelerate and expand redress payments under the September 2025 $2.5 billion settlement, which resolved allegations that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and knowingly made cancellation difficult. More consumers now qualify for refunds, the maximum payment cap rises from $51 to $200, and all future payments will be distributed automatically starting October 1, 2026, with potential supplemental $149 payments by April 2027. Amazon has already issued more than $845 million in redress payments as of September 2026.

FTC

Amway Corp.

$225.0M

The FTC and the state of Washington filed a joint complaint and proposed stipulated order requiring Amway Corp. and two affiliates—World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD)—to pay a $225 million judgment, the largest monetary recovery ever obtained from an MLM in an FTC action, over allegations that they used deceptive earnings claims and unfair tactics to recruit Independent Business Owners. The complaint alleges the companies falsely promised substantial income and recruitment success, pressured IBOs to buy products they could not resell, and instructed IBOs to falsely report sales. Nearly all of the judgment will be used as redress for IBOs who lost money, and the proposed order imposes structural reforms including a 70% resale requirement, independent audits of sales records, and a ban on approved providers charging new IBOs for first-year training.

FTC

FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.)

$100.0M

FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.) and its CEO Ronald Clarke agreed to pay $100 million to settle an FTC administrative action alleging the company charged small business customers hidden and unauthorized fees for fuel cards and misrepresented gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees. A federal district court granted the FTC summary judgment on all counts in 2023, and a federal appeals court upheld that judgment and the permanent injunction in 2026. The settlement funds will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers.

FTC

Automobile industry (auto dealers) - no named respondent; industry-wide guidance publication

FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.