<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a case over OnStar\u2019s data collection of driving information, GM\u2019s motion to dismiss at this stage of the litigation is denied. While there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of what is seen on the highways, more is involved in this data collection. In re Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88272 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nThe CRA Defendants focus on the latter part of the definition of “private electronic communication” to argue that, because the driving data arises out of publicly observable vehicle operation, the Illinois Plaintiffs do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the federal Constitution. (Br. in Supp. of Verisk’s Mot. to Dismiss, at 17). In evaluating the CRA Defendants’ argument, “[the Court’s] lodestar is Katz’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test.” United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 507 (11th Cir. 2015), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), asks that two requirements be met for there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy; first, a person must have “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and second, society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). Both the subjective and objective requirements must be satisfied before a court recognizes that an expectation of privacy is reasonable. United States v. Robinson, 62 F.3d 1325, 1328 (11th Cir. 1995).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When applying the Katz test to automobiles, it is well-established that information obtained that could be discerned from visual observation of the vehicle on public roads does not constitute an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 412 (2012). However, in this same vein, the Supreme Court has also determined that this holding is not absolute and there are certain instances where publicly available information may still constitute a search. See id. at 404-13. Ultimately, this requires the Court to conduct a fact-specific inquiry that is improper at the Motion to Dismiss stage to determine whether the driving data obtained crosses over into a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court does not foreclose the possibility that the CRA Defendants may be correct in that the information collected in real-time does not constitute an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Court will not, without further discovery, dismiss the Illinois’ Plaintiffs claims at this stage of litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a case over OnStar\u2019s data collection of driving information, GM\u2019s motion to dismiss at this stage of the litigation is denied. While there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of what is seen on the highways, more is involved … Continue reading