- California AB 311 would let auto insurers use optional telematics data to price coverage, breaking with the state’s long-standing ban on behavior-based tracking in rate-setting.
- Supporters say the bill could reward safer driving and reduce crashes, while insurers would gain a new pricing tool tied to speed, braking, swerving, phone use and other behavior.
- The California Department of Insurance opposes the bill, warning that it conflicts with Proposition 103, weakens oversight and leaves drivers exposed to privacy risks, opaque vendor practices and possible pricing bias.
California lawmakers are weighing a bill that would let auto insurers monitor driver behavior in exchange for possible premium discounts, a change that would cut into one of the state’s older insurance protections and has drawn opposition from regulators, privacy groups and consumer advocates.
Assembly Bill 311 would permit insurers to use telematics when setting rates for drivers who opt into tracking. The technology collects vehicle and driving data through phone apps, in-car systems or other connected tools. It records location, speed, braking force, swerving, phone use and other behavior behind the wheel.
California remains the only US state that bars insurers from using telematics in auto rate-setting. Current law tells insurers to rely first on safety record, miles driven and driving experience when they calculate premiums (see Types of Telematics Insurance).
AB 311 would let drivers add telematics data to their formal driving record, alongside records held by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Supporters frame the measure as a safety tool. Opponents see a privacy and pricing problem, with unresolved questions around transparency, vendor oversight and bias.
At a June 24 hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance, Kellie Montalvo urged lawmakers to pass the bill. Her 21-year-old son Benjamin died in 2020 after a distracted driver hit him while he rode his bike.
The driver had a history of speeding tickets, prior crashes and four hit-and-run incidents. She told lawmakers she spends sleepless nights wondering whether earlier intervention would have prevented her son’s death.
Other witnesses supported the measure while holding enlarged photos of relatives lost in crashes.
Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood and the bill’s author, told the committee she had lost three friends in vehicle crashes over several years. She described telematics as a way to reward safer driving behavior through insurance pricing (see 7 New Potential and Opportunity of Telematics in Car Insurance).
Safer Streets for Everyone, a road-safety nonprofit, co-sponsored the bill. Its founder and executive director, Damian Kevitt, lost a leg after a driver hit him while he was cycling.
Kevitt cited studies showing drivers improved behavior, including lower mobile-phone use, when insurers tied financial rewards to performance.
Both studies had insurance industry backing. Supporters testifying before two Senate committees did not cite independent research proving telematics improves safety.
Several road-safety coalitions and bicycle groups across California also support the bill.
The California Department of Insurance opposes AB 311. The department says the proposal conflicts with Proposition 103, the voter-approved insurance law that has shaped California auto pricing since 1988.
Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, wrote Proposition 103 in response to rising auto and home insurance premiums. Voters approved it with 51% support. The law requires insurers to give good drivers a 20% discount. Some drivers also receive low-mileage discounts, since mileage fits within the rating factors Proposition 103 permits.
Josephine Figueroa, deputy insurance commissioner and legislative director for the department, outlined the agency’s objections in a June 20 letter to Sen. Steve Padilla, chair of the Senate insurance committee.
She wrote that AB 311 creates broad liability loopholes, weakens regulator oversight and lets insurers transfer rate-setting responsibilities to unregulated third-party telematics vendors. The department also objects to vague language around insurer due diligence for outside data providers and around the use of telematics data as part of a driver’s record.
Figueroa said the department has documented cases where neutral-looking criteria produced disparate impacts. She cited census-tract voter registration rates used as a proxy for race or citizenship.
The department also questioned whether telematics produces meaningful savings for drivers. Figueroa pointed to Maryland Insurance Administration data from 2023. Among Maryland drivers enrolled in insurer telematics programs, 31% saw premiums fall, 24% saw rates rise and 45% saw no change.
Maryland regulators also found that telematics systems collected extensive trip and behavior data, including route, driving days, G-force, unsafe following and aggressive turning. Most insurers outsourced collection to third-party vendors.
The insurance department has been meeting with McKinnor’s staff about its concerns, according to department spokesperson Michael Soller. McKinnor and her staff did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the bill.
