Toyota Motor Corporation faces a class action lawsuit alleging the company secretly collected and sold detailed driver behavior data through connected car services without obtaining proper consent from vehicle owners. The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in December 2025, claims Toyota partnered with data analytics firms and insurance companies including Progressive to monetize intimate driving information gathered through built-in telematics systems in millions of vehicles.
The lead plaintiff, Philip Siefke of Eagle Lake, Florida, discovered the alleged tracking after purchasing a 2021 Toyota RAV4 and shopping for insurance coverage. When he contacted Progressive for a quote, the company already possessed a comprehensive driving profile tied to him despite never having been a Progressive customer or knowingly sharing his driving data with any insurance company. The profile reportedly included specific details such as a recorded hard braking event from the day before he sought coverage, raising immediate questions about how Progressive obtained such precise, recent information about his driving behavior.
"I was shocked when Progressive referenced specific details about my driving from the previous day," Siefke stated in court filings. "I had never given them permission to track my vehicle or collect information about how I drive. The fact that they already had this data before I even contacted them for a quote felt like a massive invasion of privacy."
The lawsuit alleges that Toyota embedded telematics hardware and software in vehicles starting around 2020, collecting data including acceleration patterns, braking behavior, cornering speeds, time of day driving occurs, and total distances traveled. This information was then allegedly transmitted to data analytics firms including Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which compiled the data into driver risk profiles sold to insurance companies for underwriting and pricing purposes.
Toyota's connected services, marketed under names including Toyota Connected Services and Safety Connect, ostensibly provide features like emergency crash notification, stolen vehicle tracking, and remote vehicle diagnostics. However, the lawsuit claims that buried within lengthy terms and conditions that most buyers never read, Toyota secured vague consent to share data with "partners" and "service providers" without clearly disclosing that this included selling detailed driving behavior information to insurance industry data brokers.
The complaint draws parallels to similar lawsuits filed against General Motors, Honda, and other manufacturers in 2024 and 2025 alleging comparable data collection and sharing practices. A March 2024 New York Times investigation revealed widespread automotive industry practices of collecting and monetizing driver data through telematics systems, sparking Congressional inquiries and multiple class action lawsuits across the industry.
According to the Toyota lawsuit, the company generated substantial revenue from data sharing arrangements while vehicle owners received no compensation and often faced higher insurance premiums based on driving behavior they didn't know was being monitored. Insurance companies allegedly used the data to identify drivers they considered risky and either denied coverage, charged higher premiums, or offered less favorable policy terms based on telematics information owners never authorized sharing.
"This represents a fundamental breach of consumer trust," explained Maureen Mahoney, a privacy attorney not involved in the case, in comments to Consumer Reports. "When people buy cars, they reasonably expect those vehicles serve their transportation needs, not function as corporate surveillance devices monetizing their every movement and driving behavior for profit. The lack of clear, informed consent makes these practices particularly egregious."
Toyota issued a statement denying wrongdoing and defending its data practices. "Toyota takes customer privacy seriously and complies with all applicable laws regarding data collection and sharing," the statement read. "Our connected services provide valuable safety and convenience features that customers appreciate. We are transparent about our data practices in our privacy policies and terms of service, which customers agree to when activating connected services."
However, critics argue that lengthy legal documents filled with technical jargon buried in vehicle purchase or app activation processes fail to meet meaningful consent standards. Research by the Mozilla Foundation in 2024 found that automotive privacy policies averaged over 50 pages of dense legal text, with data sharing provisions often embedded in sections titled "third party service providers" or similar vague language that failed to clearly disclose that insurance companies would receive detailed driving behavior information.
The lawsuit seeks class action status representing all US Toyota owners whose vehicles transmitted driving data to third parties for commercial purposes without explicit, informed consent. If certified, the class could include millions of Toyota owners, potentially creating massive liability for the automaker. Plaintiffs seek damages for privacy violations, unjust enrichment from data sales, and injunctive relief requiring Toyota to cease unauthorized data collection and sharing.
Progressive Insurance and Verisk Analytics are named as co-defendants, accused of knowingly purchasing and utilizing data collected without proper consent. Progressive declined to comment on pending litigation. Verisk stated that it "operates in compliance with all applicable laws and works only with data sources that provide appropriate legal authorization for data sharing."
The case highlights broader tensions around connected vehicle technology and data privacy. Modern cars contain dozens of sensors and computers generating massive amounts of information about vehicle performance, location, and driver behavior. This data offers genuine value for safety improvements, vehicle diagnostics, and traffic management, but it also creates privacy risks when collected, shared, and monetized without transparent consent.
Consumer advocates have long warned that the automotive industry treats data privacy as an afterthought, designing systems that maximize data collection and commercial exploitation while providing minimal transparency or control to vehicle owners. Unlike smartphones where users can decline app permissions or disable data sharing relatively easily, connected car systems often provide no meaningful opt-out mechanisms without disabling safety features or violating warranty terms.
Legislative responses have been slow and fragmented. California's Consumer Privacy Act and a few other state laws provide some protections, but no comprehensive federal legislation governs automotive data collection and sharing. Bills introduced in Congress during 2024 and 2025 seeking to establish automotive privacy standards have stalled amid industry lobbying and legislative gridlock.
The insurance industry defends telematics data use as improving risk assessment accuracy, arguing that traditional underwriting factors including age, gender, and credit scores prove less predictive of actual crash risk than behavioral data showing how individuals actually drive. Insurance companies claim that behavior-based pricing rewards safe drivers with lower premiums while charging higher rates to genuinely riskier drivers, creating fairer, more accurate pricing than demographic proxies.
"Telematics data helps us identify truly safe drivers who might otherwise be charged higher premiums based on demographic factors beyond their control," argued an insurance industry spokesperson in testimony to a Congressional committee in 2024. "A young driver who drives cautiously can demonstrate that through behavior data and receive lower rates than their age would typically command. That's fairer than the old system."
Critics counter that this argument ignores the consent issue. While behavior-based insurance might offer benefits when drivers voluntarily participate in telematics programmes like Progressive's Snapshot or State Farm's Drive Safe & Save, secretly collecting data through manufacturer partnerships denies consumers choice about whether to participate. Drivers who value privacy and prefer traditional insurance pricing based on demographic factors and driving records find themselves unable to avoid behavioral monitoring when manufacturers share data without consent.
The lawsuit also raises questions about data security. If Toyota, insurance companies, and data brokers possess detailed information about when and where millions of people drive, what safeguards protect that information from breaches, hacking, or misuse? The automotive industry's cybersecurity record shows numerous vulnerabilities, with researchers demonstrating remote hacking capabilities on various connected vehicles. Driving behavior databases create attractive targets for criminals, stalkers, or hostile actors seeking to track individuals or identify patterns for malicious purposes.
Philip Siefke's experience discovering Progressive already had his driving data before he sought coverage suggests the information flows freely among industry participants with minimal transparency to the actual drivers being monitored. The lawsuit claims this violates federal computer fraud laws, state consumer protection statutes, and common law privacy rights including intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment.
Toyota faces particular scrutiny because the company has positioned itself as conservative and traditional compared to tech-forward competitors like Tesla. The revelation that Toyota allegedly monetized customer data as aggressively as any technology company contradicts its image as a manufacturer focused on reliability and customer satisfaction rather than Silicon Valley-style data exploitation.
The case's outcome will significantly impact automotive industry practices. If courts find that manufacturers cannot bury data sharing consent in lengthy terms of service documents and require explicit, clear authorization for sharing driving behavior with insurance companies, the entire telematics data market could require restructuring. Manufacturers might need to implement opt-in systems with clear explanations of what data gets collected, who receives it, and for what purposes.
Alternatively, if courts side with Toyota and find that existing terms of service provide sufficient legal authorization for data sharing, manufacturers will continue current practices with minimal changes. The financial incentives prove substantial, with estimates suggesting automotive data could generate billions in annual revenue for manufacturers through direct sales to insurers, data brokers, and other commercial entities.
For consumers, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that modern vehicle purchases involve more than acquiring transportation. Connected cars function as data collection platforms that monitor, record, and potentially monetize driver behavior in ways that older vehicles never could. Understanding what data your vehicle collects, where it goes, and whether you can control or prevent that collection has become as important as traditional concerns about fuel economy, reliability, and safety ratings.
Philip Siefke simply wanted to buy a RAV4 and get insurance coverage. Instead, he discovered he'd been unknowingly surveilled, profiled, and had his driving behavior sold to companies he'd never heard of or agreed to do business with. Whether courts determine that experience violates his legal rights will shape privacy expectations for every driver in an increasingly connected automotive world where the destination might not be the only thing your car knows about you.