California Is the Last State to Ban Telematics — AB 311 Could End That

While every other state in the country already allows insurers to factor telematics data into driver premiums, California has held the line, until now.

Assembly Bill 311 is the proposal threatening to break that streak, as reported by KVPR | Valley Public Radio. The bill would let insurers use telematics car insurance California drivers opt into, allowing companies to monitor speed, braking, location and more in exchange for potential rate discounts. The catch, according to KVPR | Valley Public Radio, is that the state's own insurance department, consumer advocates and privacy groups are lined up against it. The Save Max Quote Index, drawn from 3.3 million+ real quote requests, consistently shows California among the highest-cost states for full coverage, context that makes any promise of savings politically charged and worth scrutinizing carefully.

California stands alone, and a new bill wants to change that

California is the only state in the nation that does not allow insurers to use telematics in setting rates. That is not a technicality. It is a deliberate policy position baked into state law.

AB 311, authored by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, would change that by letting drivers voluntarily share telematics data as part of how their driving records are established. The bill would allow this data to supplement, not replace, what a driver's Department of Motor Vehicles record already shows.

McKinnor framed the bill as a road-safety measure, saying it would "incentivize safer, good driving behavior." Her position has emotional backing from witnesses like Kellie Montalvo, a parent who testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance on June 24. Her son Benjamin, 21, was riding his bike in 2020 when a driver who had been texting struck and killed him. Montalvo told the committee, her voice breaking: "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."

Co-sponsoring the bill is Safer Streets for Everyone, a nonprofit road-safety organization whose founder, Damian Kevitt, is a cyclist who was hit by a car and lost his leg.

For California auto insurance consumers watching this debate, the stakes are concrete. California already carries some of the highest full-coverage rates in the country, and any structural change to how premiums are set touches every driver in the state.

How telematics actually works and what data it collects

Telematics is not a single device. It is a category of technology that transmits driving behavior in real time, and it reaches drivers through several channels: smartphone apps, systems embedded directly in vehicles, or other connected technology.

The data these systems collect goes well beyond simple speed readings. According to the source reporting, telematics systems documented in Maryland's research gathered: trip route, days driven, G-force, unsafe following distance, aggressive turning, braking force, swerving and location.

Most insurers do not run these systems themselves. Maryland's research found that most insurers outsourced the collection of that data to third parties, meaning your driving information may pass through vendors operating entirely outside the direct regulatory reach of state insurance commissioners.

For drivers considering any telematics program today, understanding that data chain matters. You are not simply sharing information with your insurer. You may be sharing it with a network of unregulated third-party telematics vendors.

What Proposition 103 says and why it complicates the bill

California's rate-setting rules do not come from the legislature alone. They come from a 1988 ballot measure approved by 51% of the state's voters.

Proposition 103, written by Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, was a direct response to rising car and home insurance premiums. The law requires insurers to prioritize three main factors when setting rates: safety record, miles driven and driving experience.

It also mandates that insurance companies give "good drivers" a 20% discount.

The state's insurance department says AB 311 conflicts with this structure. Josephine Figueroa, deputy insurance commissioner and legislative director, wrote to Sen. Steve Padilla, chairperson of the Senate insurance committee, on June 20, stating: "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's letter also flagged vague bill language around how insurers are supposed to conduct "due diligence" on third-party telematics providers. That letter was sent four days before the Senate insurance committee passed the bill anyway.

Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, reinforced the department's concern before the committee: "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."

Do telematics programs actually lower your premium? What the data shows

Supporters promise savings. The real-world record is more complicated.

The most rigorous state-level evidence comes from the Maryland Insurance Administration, which studied what actually happened to drivers enrolled in telematics programs in 2023. Per that research, cited by Deputy Commissioner Figueroa:

Maryland's research is notably the first of its kind conducted by a state insurance regulator, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

A separate independent survey by Consumer Reports in 2024 found a median annual savings of $120 for drivers in telematics programs. That same survey found higher savings for Black and Latino drivers than for white and Asian drivers, but it also documented that some drivers' insurance costs rose.

Proponents cited studies at the Senate hearings showing that financial incentives do change driver behavior, including reducing mobile phone use behind the wheel. However, both of those studies were backed by the insurance industry, and none of the proponents who testified before two Senate committees cited independent research showing telematics has improved overall safety outcomes.

The SMQI tracks quote patterns across California and neighboring states. Drivers in Oregon and Nevada, where telematics use in rating is already permitted, show a wide range of premium outcomes, reinforcing that savings are not automatic and depend heavily on individual driving behavior and program design.

Privacy, bias and the surveillance pricing debate

The opposition to AB 311 is not purely technical. It is philosophical.

Consumer and privacy advocates, including ACLU California Action, Consumer Federation of California and TechEquity Action, argue that drivers will feel effectively coerced into surrendering their privacy because the alternative is paying more for a product they are legally required to purchase.

Becca Cramer, speaking for Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, testified before both the Senate insurance and privacy committees: "Californians have a constitutional right to privacy and not have to choose between exercising that right and affording a mandatory product." She also noted that the bill "would authorize an opaque surveillance pricing infrastructure for a product Californians are legally required to purchase."

Cramer cited the Consumer Reports survey and said telematics companies score drivers based on "factors that correlate strongly with race and income."

Deputy Commissioner Figueroa made a parallel point in her letter, noting that the insurance department has 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."

The data broker dimension adds another layer of concern. Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate for the Consumer Federation of America, pointed to a recent settlement between the California Justice Department and General Motors, penalizing the automaker for selling driver data associated with its OnStar emergency roadside and navigation service. "You can't trust companies to do this without oversight," DeLong told CalMatters.

Where the bill stands and who is behind it

AB 311 is a "gut-and-amend" bill. That means it was substantially rewritten after the original introduction deadline passed, a process advocates say is designed to fast-track controversial legislation around normal committee scrutiny.

The new language was submitted to the Senate on June 10. Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog said her group had less than a week's notice before it came up for discussion. The insurance department's Figueroa raised the same concern in her letter to Padilla, noting that the bill, as gutted and amended, contains language the department had reviewed and flagged reservations about several months earlier.

After the Senate insurance committee passed the bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection also passed it and referred it to the appropriations committee.

The financial picture behind the bill is detailed in state campaign finance records. McKinnor has received $38,000 in campaign contributions from insurance industry groups and employees since 2022. The Personal Insurance Federation of California, a group that has long pushed for telematics in California, also gave McKinnor approximately $1,000 in dinner and travel on multiple occasions over the past several years.

Sen. Steve Padilla, who chairs the Senate insurance committee and sits on the Senate privacy committee, has received roughly the same amount in insurance industry contributions since 2022. Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa who chairs the privacy committee, has received about $27,000 from the insurance industry going back to when he ran for the state Assembly in 2008. Cabaldon expressed strong support for the bill during his committee hearing, saying consumers should have the choice to use their driving data how they want.

What this means for you

If you are a California driver, AB 311 is not law yet, but watch the appropriations committee closely for its next vote. Understand that opting into any telematics program means your data may flow to unregulated third-party vendors, not just your insurer. Review your current protections under Proposition 103, which requires insurers to prioritize your actual driving history over algorithmic predictions. Compare your current rates against what is available to you now at savemaxauto.com/states/california/ before any new pricing framework takes hold.

FAQ

Is telematics car insurance legal in California right now?

No. California is currently the only state in the nation that prohibits insurers from using telematics data when setting driver rates. AB 311 would change that on an opt-in basis, but the bill has not yet been signed into law.

Could a telematics program increase my insurance rate?

Yes. Maryland's 2023 state regulator data showed that 24% of drivers enrolled in telematics programs actually saw their rates increase, while 45% saw no change at all. Only 31% experienced a rate reduction.

What data does a telematics program collect about me?

Telematics systems can collect a wide range of information, including your trip route, location, speed, braking force, swerving behavior, G-force readings, aggressive turning, unsafe following distance and the days and times you drive. Most insurers outsource this data collection to third-party vendors.

Does Proposition 103 protect me from telematics-based pricing?

Currently, yes. Proposition 103, passed by California voters in 1988, requires insurers to base rates primarily on safety record, miles driven and driving experience. The state insurance department argues AB 311 conflicts with this law, though the Senate insurance committee passed the bill anyway.

Who is funding the push for AB 311?

State campaign finance records show that Assemblymember McKinnor, who authored the bill, has received $38,000 from insurance industry groups and employees since 2022. Two Senate committee chairs who advanced the bill have each received tens of thousands of dollars in insurance industry contributions as well.

About Taleah McGuire

Taleah McGuire is a Regional Analyst at Save Max Auto with 11+ years of insurance experience including senior roles at Kentucky Farm Bureau. She covers regulatory news, state-specific reform legislation, and traditional carrier coverage. Read more from Taleah McGuire →

Edited by Brooke Grissom.

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: KVPR | Valley Public Radio, "Proposal would allow drivers to trade personal data for potentially lower insurance rates"