California Telematics Auto Insurance Bill Would Let Drivers Trade Data for Discounts, Here's What AB 311 Really Changes

When Kellie Montalvo testified before the California Senate Standing Committee on Insurance on June 24, she described watching her 21-year-old son Benjamin die after a texting driver, someone with a record of speeding tickets, prior crashes, and three previous hit-and-runs, struck him while he was riding his bike in 2020.

That testimony sits at the heart of a debate now unfolding in Sacramento. As LAist reports, Assembly Bill 311 would allow California insurers to use telematics technology when setting rates for drivers who voluntarily agree to be tracked, a change that supporters say could save lives and lower premiums, but that opponents warn could open the door to surveillance, algorithmic bias, and weakened consumer protections. The stakes are high in a state that already carries some of the highest full-coverage auto insurance rates in the nation, according to an analysis by LAist source MarketWatch.

A mother's testimony and a bill that could reshape California car insurance

Montalvo's voice broke as she told the Senate insurance committee that the driver who killed her son Benjamin had a record that should have flagged her long before that night. "I spend many sleepless nights wondering if she had been stopped at any point prior to that horrific night, would my beautiful son be here today," Montalvo said.

She was not alone. Other witnesses carried enlarged photos of loved ones lost in crashes. Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood and the bill's author, said she has personally lost three friends in vehicle crashes over the past several years. She framed telematics as a tool to "incentivize safer, good driving behavior."

Damian Kevitt, founder and executive director of Safer Streets for Everyone, a nonprofit road-safety organization that co-sponsored AB 311, is himself a cyclist who was struck by a car and lost his leg. He testified before the committee, citing studies showing drivers reduced mobile phone use and improved their behavior behind the wheel when financial rewards were involved. Both of those studies, however, were backed by the insurance industry.

The human stakes are vivid. But so are the technical and legal complications.

What AB 311 would actually change, and why California is an outlier

California is the only state in the nation that does not allow insurers to use telematics in setting rates. Every other state already permits it. AB 311 would end that distinction.

Currently, California auto insurance law, specifically Proposition 103, a ballot measure approved by 51% of voters in 1988, requires insurers to prioritize three factors when setting premiums: safety record, miles driven, and driving experience. Prop. 103 was written by Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of Consumer Watchdog, in response to rising car and home insurance premiums nearly four decades ago. It also mandates that insurance companies give "good drivers" a 20% discount.

AB 311 would not eliminate those requirements. Instead, it would allow drivers to voluntarily add telematics data to their driving records, alongside what their Department of Motor Vehicles records already show. Participation is opt-in only.

The state's insurance department argues the bill is fundamentally incompatible with Prop. 103. And several consumer advocacy groups agree, raising concerns about transparency, data ownership, and the outsized power that would shift to unregulated third-party vendors.

How telematics works: what your car or phone would share

Telematics is not new technology, but its application in insurance pricing is expanding rapidly across the country.

Under AB 311, insurers could collect behavioral data through one of several methods:

• Smartphone apps that monitor driving patterns in real time
• Systems embedded directly in a vehicle's hardware
• Other connected technology linked to the driver's profile

The data collected goes well beyond simple mileage tracking. According to Maryland Insurance Administration research cited in the source reporting, telematics systems in that state collected information on trip route, days driven, G-force readings, unsafe following distance, aggressive turning, and many additional driver behaviors. Most insurers in Maryland outsourced that data collection to third-party vendors, a detail that has drawn sharp criticism from California's insurance regulators.

The current law does allow one narrow form of monitoring: low-mileage discounts. Because miles driven is an explicitly permitted rating factor under Prop. 103, programs tied to odometer readings have long been acceptable. What AB 311 proposes goes considerably further.

Who opposes the bill and why

The opposition to AB 311 is broad, technically specific, and comes from unexpected directions, including California's own Insurance Department.

Josephine Figueroa, deputy insurance commissioner and legislative director for the department, wrote a letter to Sen. Steve Padilla, chairperson of the Senate insurance committee, on June 20 laying out the agency's objections. She wrote that the bill "creates broad liability loopholes, dilutes regulator oversight, and allows insurance companies to shift core regulatory responsibilities to unregulated third-party telematics vendors, among other concerns."

Figueroa also flagged language in the bill she described as vague, specifically around what "due diligence" insurance companies are expected to perform when working with third-party telematics providers. And she raised an alarm about documented cases where "facially neutral criteria produce disparate impacts, such as the use of census-tract voter registration rates as a proxy for race or citizenship."

Consumer Watchdog executive director Carmen Balber was equally pointed.

"In California, auto insurance has to be rated in a driver's actual driving history, not the product of an unverified algorithm or (artificial intelligence) system predicting future driving."

Balber also questioned the bill's legislative process. AB 311 is a "gut-and-amend" measure, a bill substantially rewritten after the standard introduction deadline, often used to fast-track controversial legislation. The new language was submitted to the Senate on June 10, and Balber said her organization had less than a week's notice before it came up for committee discussion.

Privacy advocates added another layer of concern. Becca Cramer, speaking for Privacy Rights Clearinghouse before both Senate committees, called AB 311 a bill that "would authorize an opaque surveillance pricing infrastructure for a product Californians are legally required to purchase." She noted that "Californians have a constitutional right to privacy and not have to choose between exercising that right and affording a mandatory product."

Groups signing on to the opposition include ACLU California Action, Consumer Federation of California, and TechEquity Action.

Savings, surcharges, and surveillance: what the data shows

The most concrete national data on telematics outcomes comes from two sources: a 2024 Consumer Reports survey and research from the Maryland Insurance Administration, the first study by a state insurance regulator on the subject, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

Those numbers paint a nuanced picture. For roughly a third of drivers in Maryland, telematics produced a benefit. For nearly a quarter, it backfired. And nearly half saw no effect at all.

Cramer cited the Consumer Reports data to argue that telematics companies score drivers on "factors that correlate strongly with race and income", echoing concerns from the Insurance Department about where drivers live, work, and travel.

Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate for the Consumer Federation of America, pointed to a recent California Justice Department settlement with General Motors as a cautionary example. The case penalized the automaker for selling driver data collected through its OnStar emergency roadside and navigation service. "You can't trust companies to do this without oversight," DeLong told CalMatters.

The Save Max Quote Index, drawn from 3.3 million+ real quote requests, consistently shows that California drivers face elevated premium pressure compared to most other states, which helps explain why the prospect of any savings, however variable, is generating serious legislative interest. Drivers in neighboring Oregon and Nevada already operate under telematics-permissive frameworks, giving insurers in those markets more pricing flexibility than California law currently allows.

What this means for you

If you are a California driver watching AB 311 move through the legislature, evaluate what telematics would actually require you to give up, your location, braking patterns, route history, and more, and compare that against the realistic range of outcomes: a median savings of $120 per year, no change for nearly half of participants, and a rate increase for roughly one in four. Review your current California auto insurance policy to understand your existing discounts, particularly any low-mileage programs already permitted under Prop. 103. If the bill becomes law, read any opt-in agreement carefully before enrolling, and ask specifically which third-party vendor will collect and store your driving data and how long it will be retained.

What happens next with AB 311

California's Senate insurance committee passed AB 311 on June 24, four days after Figueroa sent her letter of opposition to Sen. Padilla. The Senate Standing Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection also passed the bill shortly thereafter and referred it to the appropriations committee, where it now sits.

Padilla chairs the Senate insurance committee and also sits on the privacy committee. His spokesperson said he was unavailable to respond to CalMatters' questions about the Insurance Department's concerns. Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa who chairs the privacy committee, expressed strong support for the bill during his committee hearing, saying consumers should have the right to use their driving data as they choose and that he believed in the technology's potential.

The insurance department is currently meeting with Assemblymember McKinnor's staff to discuss its concerns, according to department spokesperson Michael Soller. McKinnor's office has not answered CalMatters' questions about the bill.

Campaign finance records show that McKinnor has received $38,000 in contributions from insurance industry groups and employees since 2022, including from the Personal Insurance Federation of California, a group that has also provided approximately $1,000 in dinner and travel to McKinnor on multiple occasions over the past few years, according to CalMatters' Digital Democracy database. Padilla and Cabaldon have each received comparable sums from insurance industry sources over similar time periods, finance records show.

The bill heads next to the appropriations committee. Whether it clears that hurdle and reaches the governor's desk remains an open question, but the timeline is moving quickly.

FAQ

About Kyle Greenwood

Kyle Greenwood is a Writer and Researcher at Save Max Auto with a decade of consumer-content experience. He specializes in explainers, longer-form features, and Q&A guides on the topics auto drivers actually search for. Read more from Kyle Greenwood →

Edited by Taleah McGuire.

Methodology

This article is grounded in the source linked above. Save Max Auto data points referenced here are drawn from the Save Max Quote Index (SMQI), a proprietary instrument reflecting 3,364,317 real consumer quote requests submitted to savemaxauto.com. State and carrier rankings reflect the lifetime dataset; year-over-year shifts reflect a rolling 12-month window. The index is refreshed monthly. External authority figures referenced (NAIC, NHTSA, state regulators) reflect the most recent public data releases available at time of writing.

Sources

• Primary source: LAist, "Auto insurance rates"