California’s latest auto insurance push could make vehicle tracking more official

AB 311 puts tracking on the table

California drivers have long been rated mostly based on records, mileage, and experience, not on a live stream of braking or lane changes. AB 311, officially called the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, could open that door for volunteers.

The proposal would let participating drivers use telematics data to help establish a driving safety record. Insurers could use qualifying driving data when setting rates, but only through a telematics program reviewed through California’s rate approval process and used with the driver’s prior consent.

AB 311 would make consent central

The Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026 is built around an opt-in choice, not automatic enrollment. A driver would have to provide prior written authorization before an insurer or telematics provider could collect or use the data, along with an express signature on a separate disclosure notice.

Drivers who decline could remain under California’s existing rating approach. The bill also says an insurer could not require participation simply to qualify for insurance, helping separate basic access to coverage from a customer’s willingness to share their personal driving data.

AB 311 redefines a driving record

Under the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, telematics could become another way to establish a driving safety record. That phrase already appears in California insurance law, but Proposition 103 did not provide a single, comprehensive definition.

The bill uses that opening to add voluntary driving data without creating a separate mandatory rating factor. Supporters call the proposal a voluntary modernization of California’s insurance rules. The California Department of Insurance and consumer advocates have opposed it, arguing that lawmakers may be stretching the meaning of a voter-approved rating factor.

Your car may already collect plenty

Modern vehicles can record far more than speed. Connected-car systems may collect location, braking, acceleration, trip timing, and other details. AB 311 would place narrower limits on insurance programs, including restrictions on location, driving-time, biometric, and unrelated personal data.

That history explains why AB 311 focuses heavily on permission and limits. The concern is not whether cars can gather driving information, because many already can. The bigger question is who receives it, how long it is stored, and whether drivers truly understand what they are approving.

Little-known fact: Some GM vehicles collected precise location information as often as every three seconds, according to a 2025 federal complaint.

The bill draws privacy boundaries

AB 311 would limit telematics data to private passenger auto insurance rating and restrict unrelated uses. The July 9 version would prohibit insurers and their vendors from collecting cabin recordings, biometric data, screen captures, and information unrelated to safe driving, including vehicle location and driving time.

Those guardrails matter because cabin cameras and microphones are increasingly common in newer vehicles. They may support hands-free systems, attention monitoring, or voice controls, but insurance scoring raises different concerns. The bill tries to separate driving measurements from an open-ended view inside the car.

Fun fact: The FTC warned in 2024 that connected cars can collect biometric, location, video, telematics, and other personal information.

Six months could shape a score

The proposed program would generally limit how long insurers or vendors keep raw telematics data. The bill would generally cap retention at six months and require deletion after a rating is assigned, subject to limited exceptions for legal compliance and fraud investigations.

A six-month window may sound brief, yet it can include thousands of trips, commutes, errands, and unexpected road conditions. Drivers would need clear explanations of what is measured, how often it is recorded, and how those observations are used to calculate an insurance score.

A discount is not automatic

Usage-based insurance is often advertised with a simple promise: safer driving may lower the bill. AB 311, however, would not guarantee that every participating Californian receives a discount or saves the same amount.

Pricing could depend on the insurer’s approved model, the behaviors it measures, and how a driver compares with others in the program. Some people may benefit, while others could see little change. Reading the enrollment terms would be just as important as watching the headline savings offer.

Algorithms may miss road context

A hard stop can signal risky driving, but it can also prevent a crash when traffic suddenly comes to a halt. Frequent lane changes may look aggressive in one setting and completely normal near crowded exits or construction zones.

Telematics models turn patterns into scores, so context becomes a concern. AB 311 would require insurers to submit their models and supporting studies to regulators. It would also require explanations, access to collected data, and a process for drivers to challenge incorrect information or the application of a rating factor.

GM’s case changed the debate

Driver-data concerns intensified after the FTC alleged that General Motors and OnStar collected and sold precise location and driving-behavior information without adequate notice or informed consent. GM ended its Smart Driver program in 2024, and the FTC finalized a settlement order in January 2026.

The case illustrated how driving data could flow from an automaker to consumer reporting companies and then be used in decisions about insurance eligibility or pricing. AB 311 takes a different route by creating a regulated opt-in system, but the GM episode explains why many Californians may remain especially cautious.

California remains the big holdout

According to the bill’s legislative findings and current state reporting, California is the only state that does not allow insurers to use telematics when setting auto rates. That makes AB 311 a major policy shift, even though participation would be voluntary.

Elsewhere, insurers commonly use smartphone apps, plug-in devices, or built-in vehicle systems to observe driving patterns. California’s market is especially important due to its size and strict insurance regulations. A change there could attract more programs while influencing how privacy protections are designed in many other U.S. states.

Proposition 103 raises the bar

California voters approved Proposition 103 in 1988, creating stronger oversight of insurance rates and setting key factors for auto pricing. Those factors include driving safety record, annual mileage, and years of driving experience.

Because AB 311 would affect that framework, it needs a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and must further Proposition 103’s purposes. That higher threshold makes the bill harder to pass than ordinary legislation. It also gives regulators, consumer groups, insurers, and lawmakers more room to challenge details.

Regulators would review the models

Insurers could not simply launch a tracking program and quietly choose their own rules. AB 311 would require a rate application to include information on the telematics system, scoring methods, consumer notices, vendors, and data protections.

The California insurance commissioner could review those materials before approving their use. The bill also provides enforcement tools, including penalties and possible suspension of a telematics program.

Regulatory review could limit improper use, although proprietary models and trade-secret materials submitted to the state may remain confidential. Effective oversight would therefore depend heavily on the department’s technical expertise and access to complete documentation.

For another auto insurance update tied to driver costs, state rules, and policy changes, see why Louisiana’s rewrite is already being felt.

The final rules are still moving

As of July 21, 2026, AB 311 has not become California law. As of July 21, 2026, AB 311 has not become law. Following a Senate committee vote to advance an amended version to the Appropriations Committee, updated bill language was published on July 9, and the proposal could still change.

Drivers should monitor whether the bill’s consent, scoring transparency, deletion, appeal, and voluntary participation protections remain intact through subsequent amendments and implementation. The technology is already widely available. What California is deciding now is whether insurance use can work without making privacy the price of affordability.

For another auto insurance update tied to city premiums, crash costs, and driver fairness, see why Hochul’s overhaul is raising new questions.

Would you be comfortable if car insurance rules made vehicle tracking feel more official? Share your thoughts and drop a comment.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Why Illinois drivers may soon rethink auto insurance before a long road trip
• Michigan insurance bill targets price optimization in home and auto coverage
• U.S. auto dealers are facing an affordability squeeze as buyers pull back