By Shawn Henry 
A new lawsuit involving Toyota, Progressive Insurance, and a data analytics company is drawing attention to how connected vehicles collect and share driver data, often without motorists fully realizing what is happening.
The case was filed by Philip Siefke of Eagle Lake, Florida, who says he was unaware that his personal driving information was being gathered and shared after he purchased a 2021 Toyota RAV4. According to the complaint, that data went beyond basic identifying details and included GPS location information, driving habits, and specific behavioral events. Siefke alleges that the information was transmitted to Progressive Insurance and contributed to higher insurance rates.
Siefke says he learned about the alleged tracking only after shopping for insurance coverage, when Progressive already appeared to have a detailed driving profile associated with him. That profile reportedly included a hard braking incident recorded the day before he sought a policy, suggesting that vehicle data had been collected and analyzed before he had direct knowledge of it.
The lawsuit argues that while Siefke technically agreed to Toyota’s data practices, the consent process did not make the scope or impact of the data sharing clear. Court records show that he accepted Toyota’s terms in March 2021 and again in March 2024, allowing the company to collect vehicle data and share it with third parties. A judge has ruled that those agreements require arbitration, preventing Siefke from suing Toyota directly, though he continues to pursue legal options.
The dispute reflects a broader pattern facing the auto industry. Similar claims have previously targeted General Motors and data broker LexisNexis, with allegations that driving data was shared in ways that affected insurance pricing. Those concerns recently prompted regulatory action.
This week, the Federal Trade Commission issued an order barring General Motors and its OnStar division from selling geolocation and driving behavior data for five years. Regulators concluded that GM collected and shared data from millions of vehicles without clearly informing drivers or obtaining meaningful consent, citing a misleading enrollment process tied to connected services.
While telematics technology has potential benefits, cases like this underscore growing concerns about transparency, consent, and control. Without enforceable rules that allow drivers to understand and limit how their data is used, connected vehicles may continue to blur the line between convenience and constant surveillance.
Eve 
John