GM class action lawsuit: Does the OnStar deal end the GM lawsuit?

Who gets the $220 million?

The participating governments receive the money. The agreement involves 35 states and the District of Columbia, rather than a single nationwide fund that GM owners can claim. Pennsylvania's announcement identifies the coalition and the privacy commitments GM accepted.

For you, the distinction is whether a proceeding changes a company's behavior or compensates a person. Those can happen together, but Michigan's announcement expressly rules out consumer restitution in this deal. A consumer lawyer can assess a separate dispute about data use or insurance costs; owning a GM vehicle alone doesn't establish a right to money.

Why OnStar Smart Driver drew the lawsuits

The states allege GM sold identifiable driving histories for insurance use after presenting Smart Driver as a way to improve driving safety. Pennsylvania says the program enrolled millions of drivers from 2016 to 2024 and that insurers used the information in setting some customers' rates. That doesn't establish that every participant paid a higher premium.

The disputed enrollment process is part of the case. Delaware's attorney general says dealership employees sometimes accepted terms for customers without their consent, while GM rewarded enrollments. The information could reveal a driver's trip times and hard-braking events. A safety feature on a new car could therefore become a record used in pricing insurance, without the driver understanding that second use.

The allegations also reach people who thought they weren't enrolled. The states say the app incorrectly told more than 370,000 drivers that Smart Driver was off for them, though their data was being collected and sold. They say GM later unenrolled those drivers without explaining the mistake. A past app message alone may therefore leave a question about what happened to older records.

GM's response emphasizes that the program has ended. A spokesperson told The Record the agreement concerns Smart Driver, "a product we ended in 2024," and reinforces changes to its privacy practices. GM agreed to the commitments without admitting the alleged facts or liability. The published Pennsylvania consent document awaits court entry as of the copy available October 30, 2026: its judge and order-date lines are blank. It does not establish that a court has entered the decree or proved each driver's account.

What the November 30 terms would change

November 30, 2026 is the effective date defined in the published Pennsylvania consent document, which awaits court entry as of the copy available October 30. October 29 was the announcement, not the start of every implementation deadline. GM agreed to give covered consumers more control over driving and location data, with exceptions for uses such as emergency response and vehicle safety.

These state terms concern the coalition's 35 states and the District of Columbia, rather than every U.S. driver. GM is entering separate consent judgments with participating jurisdictions; Pennsylvania's paragraph 10 defines a consumer as a person in the Commonwealth. Texas and California are outside that coalition. California announced its own $12.75 million settlement on May 8, 2026, and that settlement is court-approved. Its final judgment in Napa Superior Court, No. 26CV001011, bears a May 12, 2026 filing stamp and judicial date and imposes separate privacy terms.

Under the Pennsylvania document, affirmative express consent means a clear, informed act of agreement. Broad terms of use and pre-ticked boxes don't count. Separate, unrelated features that use covered data would require separate consent, so agreement to one feature could not simply stand in for agreement to everything.

The commitments also include dealer training and independent privacy assessment. They would require GM to ask recipients to delete covered data it shared before January 16, 2025, except where legal requirements allow it to be kept, including for ongoing court cases. A request to a recipient is not proof that every copy has already disappeared.

What the FTC already required

The state agreement arrives alongside an earlier federal order. The FTC finalized its GM and OnStar order on January 14, 2026, imposing a five-year ban on disclosing consumers' geolocation and driver-behavior data to consumer reporting agencies.

For the order's 20-year life, GM must also provide ways for U.S. consumers to obtain their data and seek deletion. It must offer opt-out controls for geolocation and driving-behavior collection, with limited exceptions. The requirement to let drivers disable precise-location collection depends on the vehicle having the necessary technology.

These protections don't mean all connected-car data collection stops. The FTC order allows specified uses, including location information for emergency responders. The useful question for a driver is which information a feature collects and which choices apply to it, rather than whether every connected service has become unlawful.

Where the private OnStar lawsuit stands

The private nationwide class action seeking money was still pending according to Michigan's October 29 announcement. Pennsylvania's consent document expressly preserves private rights of action: the state deal does not settle drivers' own claims.

The federal driver-data litigation is grouped in the Northern District of Georgia as MDL No. 3115, case No. 1:24-md-3115-TWT. In its April 22 order, the court dismissed some claims and allowed others to proceed. That ruling addressed which claims could continue, rather than announcing a payment to drivers.

The later September 2 minute entry, number 315, records the court denying GM and OnStar's motions for clarification and partial reconsideration. The court left Verisk's request for partial reconsideration for a later decision and ordered GM and OnStar to provide the first two named plaintiffs' driving data collected through June 2024, including data shared with third parties. Those rulings concern the litigation and access to records, rather than compensation.

The public docket copy was last updated September 8, 2026, when entry 316 recorded the filing of the September 2 hearing transcript. A September 2 notice tentatively set a status conference for October 5. These entries establish the posture through September 8; they do not show the conference's outcome or establish whether later orders were entered.

The separate Google Assistant settlement is a court-approved private settlement with its own eligibility and payment rules. Any payment to OnStar drivers would need its own settlement or court decision, with separate eligibility rules.

How the driver-data dispute developed

1. January 14, 2026

   The FTC announced its final GM and OnStar privacy order.

2. May 12, 2026

   California's separate $12.75 million settlement judgment was filed and dated by the judge in Napa Superior Court.

3. September 2, 2026

   The federal court denied GM and OnStar's clarification and partial-reconsideration motions, left Verisk's request for a later decision and ordered production of the first two named plaintiffs' driving data.

4. September 8, 2026

   The last update in the public docket copy records the filing of the September 2 hearing transcript.

5. October 29, 2026

   A coalition of 36 attorneys general announced the $220 million settlement.

6. November 30, 2026

   The effective date defined in the published Pennsylvania consent document, whose judicial signature and order-date lines remain blank in the copy available October 30.

What your insurance records can tell you

A LexisNexis consumer disclosure report can show information the company maintains about you. Its consumer portal provides a way to request the report.

A record can help identify what information a company holds; it doesn't establish on its own why your insurer changed a price. A renewal notice and the insurer's explanation answer a different question from a driving-history report. A dispute over how an insurer used your information may also raise questions for an insurance lawyer.

What to verify before pursuing a claim

The relevant records are your own enrollment history and any evidence of how your data was used. A lawyer needs those specifics to assess an individual concern. You can request legal help with a question about your own data or insurance records.

For the private case, the next development affecting a possible payment would be a settlement or court decision setting out whether drivers can recover money and on what terms. This is general information, not legal advice about your claim.

1. Which vehicle and OnStar account were involved, and what enrollment or consent messages you received.
2. Whether a consumer disclosure report contains relevant driving information, and whether anything in it is inaccurate.
3. Any insurance decision or renewal notice you are concerned about, together with the reason the insurer gave.
4. Whether a notice concerns driver data, an engine defect or another GM case; similar company names do not make the terms interchangeable.
5. Whether a lawyer represents you individually and what deadlines apply to your particular claim, rather than assuming the state settlement sets a filing deadline for you.