Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DEMETRIC SIMS, individually and on behalf

of all similarly situated persons, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE
Plaintiffs, RELIEF
v.
Civil Action No.
THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CLASS REPRESENTATION
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Jury Trial Demanded
ARITY, LLC,
ARITY 875, LLC, and
ARITY SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Demetric Sims (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, brings this Class Action Complaint against the Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance

Company, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Arity, LLC, Arity 875, LLC, and

Arity Services, LLC (collectively, “Allstate” or “Defendants”), to obtain damages, restitution, and

injunctive relief for the Class, as defined below, from Defendants. Plaintiff makes the following

allegations upon information and belief, except as to their own actions, the investigation of their

counsel, and the facts that are a matter of public record:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for surveillance of insureds and

invasion of their clients’ privacy by collecting data on their clients’ ___location and driving habits,

surreptitiously, and without clients’ consent.

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2

2. Defendants, each a company owned by The Allstate Corporation, an insurance

company, conspired to secretly collect and sell “trillions of miles” of consumers’ “driving

behavior” data from mobile devices, in-car devices, and vehicles. Defendants used the illicitly

obtained data to build the “world’s largest driving behavior database,” housing the driving

behavior of over 45 million Americans. Defendants created the database for two main purposes:

(1) to support Allstate Defendants’ car insurance business, including relative to under-writing and

coverage decisions, and (2) profit from selling the driving behavior data to third parties, including

other car insurance carriers (“Insurers”).

3. Through the software integrated into the third-party apps, Defendants directly

pulled a litany of valuable data directly from consumers’ mobile phones. The data included a

phone’s geolocation data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and gyroscopic data, which

monitors details such as the phone’s altitude, longitude, latitude, bearing, GPS time, speed, and

accuracy (“Driving Data”).

4. To encourage developers to adopt Defendants’ software, Defendants paid app

developers millions of dollars to integrate Defendants’ software development kits (“SDK”) into

their apps. In general, SDKs can provide app developers a helpful tool to build and develop their

apps. SDKs usually consist of a set of tools (APIs, software, etc.) with preprogrammed functions

that are integrated into an app and operate in the background.

5. Defendants further incentivized software developer usage of their SDK by creating

generous bonus incentives for increasing the size of their dataset. According to Defendants, the

apps in to which their SDK is integrated currently allow them to “capture[] [data] every 15 seconds

or less” from “40 [million] active mobile connections.”1

1
“Why Arity?”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/real-time-insights/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3

6. Once collected, Defendants found several ways to monetize the ill-gotten Driving

Data, including by selling access to the Driving Data to other insurers and using the data for

Allstate Defendants’ own insurance underwriting and coverage decisions. If a consumer requested

a car insurance quote or had to renew their coverage, Insurers would access that consumer’s driving

behavior in Defendants’ database. Insurers then secretly used that consumer’s data to justify

increasing their car insurance premiums, denying them coverage, or dropping them from coverage.

7. Defendants marketed and sold the data obtained through third-party apps as

“driving” data reflecting consumers’ driving habits, despite the data being collected from and

about the ___location of a person’s phone.

8. Consumers did not consent to, nor were aware of Defendants’ collection and sale

of Driving Data. Defendants never informed consumers about their extensive data collection, nor

did Defendants obtain consumers’ consent to engage in such data collection. Defendants never

informed consumers as to how they would analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data.

9. The putative Class is comprised of millions of Americans who were never informed

about, nor consented to, Defendants’ continuous collection and sale of their Driving Data.

Through this action, Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages for the losses suffered as a result

of Defendants’ misconduct, as well as injunctive relief aimed at preventing Defendants from

engaging in such practices in the future.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Demetric Sims is an individual who, at all material times, resided in Fulton

County, Georgia. Sims is a client of Defendant The Allstate Corporation, from whom he has

purchased auto and rental insurance. Sims has used Sirius XM app, and was never notified that

his Driving Data was shared with Defendants.

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4

11. Defendant The Allstate Corporation is a United States public corporation

headquartered in Glenview, Illinois, and incorporated under the laws of Illinois. Together with its

subsidiaries, Defendant The Allstate Corporation provides insurance products, including car

insurance, throughout the United States.

12. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The

Allstate Corporation and is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, and incorporated under the laws

of Illinois. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company provides insurance products, including car

insurance, throughout the United States.

13. Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company is a subsidiary of The

Allstate Corporation and is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, and incorporated under the laws

of Illinois. Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company provides insurance

products, including car insurance, throughout the United States.

14. Defendant Arity, LLC, was founded by The Allstate Corporation in 2016 and is a

wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation. Its headquarters is in Chicago, Illinois, and

it is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Defendant Arity, LLC, is a mobility data and

analytics company that, together with the other subsidiaries of Defendant The Allstate

Corporation, collects and analyzes data obtained throughout the United States, and uses predictive

analytics to build solutions to sell to third parties.

15. Defendant Arity 875, LLC, was founded by The Allstate Corporation in 2016 and

is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation. Its headquarters is in Northbrook,

Illinois, and it is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Upon information and belief, the LLC’s

members, including Allstate, Alexandra Band, Christopher Belden, Jennifer Brown, Julie Cho,

Eric Ferren, Amit Goswami, Suren Gupta, Gary Hallgren, Christina Hwang and Lisa Jillson, are
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5

all citizens of Illinois. Defendant Arity 875, LLC, is a mobility data and analytics company that,

together with the other subsidiaries of Defendant The Allstate Corporation, collects and analyzes

data obtained throughout the United States, and uses predictive analytics to build solutions to sell

to third parties.

16. Defendant Arity Services, LLC, was founded by The Allstate Corporation in 2016

and is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation. Its headquarters is in Northbrook,

Illinois, and it is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Upon information and belief, the LLC’s

members, including Allstate, Alexandra Band, Christopher Belden, Jennifer Brown, Julie Cho,

Eric Ferren, Amit Goswami, Suren Gupta, Gary Hallgren, Christina Hwang and Lisa Jillson, are

all citizens of Illinois. Defendant Arity Services, LLC, is a mobility data and analytics company

that, together with the other subsidiaries of Defendant The Allstate Corporation, collects and

analyzes data obtained throughout the United States, and uses predictive analytics to build

solutions to sell to third parties.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed $5,000,000.00,

exclusive of interest and costs, and all conditions are met. In particular, Plaintiff, and a large

number of Class Members, are citizens of states different from the Defendants’.

18. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants as Defendants maintain their

corporate headquarters in this District.

19. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District

and Defendants are headquartered in this District.

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6

GENERAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20. In their own words, Defendants have amassed the Driving Data from “130M+

average daily trips from 45M+ active geographically dispersed consumer connections”, i.e., more

than 45 million Americans.2 Defendants obtained the data without consumers’ knowing by

integrating an SDK (a piece of software) into various mobile apps that enabled them to collect data

directly from consumers’ phones.

21. Defendants have monetized Class Members’ Driving Data in a variety of ways,

including by building the “world’s largest driving behavior database,”3 and selling access to it to

other insurers.

22. Defendants never notified Plaintiff and Class Members, nor obtained their consent,

to collect or sell their Driving Data.

I. Defendants Developed Software Tools to Covertly Collect Consumers’

Location Data

23. On information and belief, in 2015 Allstate Defendants designed an SDK that could

be integrated into mobile phone applications to collect data about the ___location and movements of

a person’s phone.

24. The SDK Defendants developed was little more than a way for Defendants to scrape

user data from several third-party apps under the pretext of providing a necessary functionality.

Specifically, Defendants designed the Arity Driving Engine SDK (“Arity SDK”) to collect

immense amounts of Driving Data, in granular form.

25. Once incorporated in a mobile app, the Arity SDK harvested several types

of data, including but not limited to:

2
“Benefits”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/vehicle-miles-traveled/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
3
Id.
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7

a. a mobile phone’s geolocation data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and

gyroscopic data;

b. “Trip attributes,” which included information about a consumer’s movements, such

as start and end ___location, distance, duration, start and end time, and termination

reason code;

c. “GPS points,” such as the accuracy, position, longitude, latitude, heading, speed,

GPS time, time received, bearing, and altitude of a consumer’s mobile phone;

d. “Derived events,” such as acceleration, speeding, distracted driving, crash

detection, and attributes such as start and end ___location, start and end time, speed

attribute, rate of change attribute, and signal strength attribute; and

e. Metadata, such as ad ID, country code, iOS vs. Android indicator, User ID, device

type, app version, and OS version.

26. Because the Arity SDK operated and collected data in the background, absent being

notified by Defendants or the app, Plaintiff and Class Members were kept in the dark about the

Arity SDK’s existence. Plaintiff and Class Members were likewise unaware that Defendants were

directly collecting Driving Data from their phones. Defendants never notified nor otherwise

informed consumers that they were collecting their data via the Arity SDK and the apps.

II. Defendants Paid App Developers to Integrate the Arity SDK into Mobile Apps

27. Since at least 2017, Defendants have been “licensing” the Arity SDK by paying

app developers millions of dollars to integrate the Arity SDK into their respective mobile apps. On

information and belief, to avoid alerting consumers of their data collection, Defendants only sought

to partner with apps that, prior to contracting with Defendants, already contained features that

relied on ___location information to function properly. Defendants integrated Arity SDK into widely
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8

popular apps, such as: Routely, Life360, GasBuddy, Sirius XM, and Fuel Rewards.

28. Once an app integrated the Arity SDK, the user was unwittingly enabling

Defendants to collect the Driving Data via the Arity SDK.

29. Pursuant to their agreements with the app developers, Defendants owned any

Driving Data they collected from an app user and were permitted to use the Driving Data for their

own independent purposes. Defendants further agreed to license or transfer subsets of the Driving

Data to the app developers to use to support specific features in their apps, such as displaying a

summary of a user’s trip and fuel efficiency.

30. In a further invasion of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ privacy, to allow Defendants

to match specific individuals to the Driving Data, the app publishers licensed the personal data that

they collected from their users to Defendants. The personal data that mobile apps licensed to

Defendants generally included first and last name, phone number, address, zip code, mobile ad-

ID, device ID, and ad-ID (collectively, “Personal Data”). Upon combining the Personal Data with

the Driving Data, Defendants could more reliably identify the specific person being monitored by

the Arity SDK.

III. Defendants’ Products and Services Monetized Class Members’ Data

31. Defendants used Class Members’ Driving Data and Personal Data, alone and in

conjunction with one another, to develop, advertise, and sell several different products and services

to third parties, including Insurers, and used the Driving Data and Personal Data for the Allstate

Defendants’ own underwriting purposes. Defendants’ products and services included:

a. Drivesight. In 2015, Allstate Defendants developed Drivesight to

generate a driving score based on Defendants’ own scoring model

by analyzing data and generating driving scores that assign a

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9

particular value to an individual’s driving risk.4

b. ArityIQ. Defendants let companies, including Insurers, “[a]ccess

actual driving behavior collected from mobile phones and

connected vehicles to use at time of quote to more precisely price

nearly any driver.”5

c. Arity Audiences. Defendants let companies, including Insurers,

“[t]arget drivers based on risk, mileage, commuting habits” and

“[m]ore effectively reach [their] ideal audiences with the best offers

to eliminate wasted spend, increase retention, and achieve optimal

customer LTV.” As part of this product, Defendants displayed ads

to the users of apps that agreed to integrate the Arity SDK.6

d. Real Time Insights. Defendants advertised that their business

customers could “[r]eceive granular driver probe and event data for

real-time applications.”7

e. Routely. Defendants offer consumers Routely, a “free” application which

purports to provide “helpful insights” into the consumers’ driver data. By

contrast, when marketing to Insurers, Defendants describe Routely as

“telematics in a box” that Insurers can use to “more accurately identify drivers

with riskier driving profiles based on actual driving data, provide personalized

discounts or surcharges at renewal, promote safer driving habits, and improve

4
“Drivesight®”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/drivesight/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
5
“ArityIQSM”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/arity-iq/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
6
“Arity Audiences”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/arity-audiences/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
7
“Real Time Insights”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/real-time-insights/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10

retention of [their] safer drivers.”8

32. Notably, Defendants primarily marketed the Driving Data to third parties as

“driving behavior” data as opposed to what the Driving Data really was: data about the movements

of a person’s mobile phone. On information and belief, Defendants had no way to reliably

determine whether a person was driving at the time Defendants collected the Driving Data.

33. For example, if a person was a passenger in a bus, a taxi, or in a friend’s car, and

that vehicle’s driver sped, hard braked, or made a sharp turn, Defendants would conclude that the

passenger, not the actual driver, engaged in “bad” driving behavior based on the Driving Data.

Defendants would then subsequently sell and share the data so it could be used to inform decisions

about that passenger’s insurability based on their “bad” driving behavior.

34. In a further example of Defendants’ abusive practices in connection with Driving

Data, a person’s driving score was lowered because the “driving” behavior data collected from his

phone claimed he was driving, when he was actually riding a roller coaster.9

IV. Defendants’ Lack of Privacy Disclosures

35. Pursuant to their agreements with app developers, Defendants had varying levels

of control over the privacy disclosures and consent language that app developers presented to

consumers. However, neither Defendants, nor the apps running Defendants’ SDK, informed

Plaintiff and Class Members that Defendants were collecting Driving Data. Nor did Defendants,

nor the apps on Defendants’ behalf, inform Plaintiff and Class Members of the various ways that

Defendants would collect, use, and ultimately monetize the Driving Data.

36. Because Defendants did not disclose their conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members

8
“Routinely®”. Arity, https://arity.com/solutions/routely/ (last accessed on January 13, 2025).
9
Chad Murphy, “Sir, this is a roller coaster. Car insurance dings driving score for man riding The Beast.” The
Cincinnati Enquirer (October 8, 2024), https://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/2024/10/08/insurance-cuts-
driving-score-man-riding-the-beast-kings-island/75554987007/ (January 13, 2025).
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11

were wholly unaware that Defendants were collecting the Driving Data from their phone. Plaintiff

and Class Members were likewise wholly unaware that Defendants would use the Driving Data to

create and sell several different products and services to third parties, including other insurers.

37. Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and Class Members with any sort of notice of

their data and privacy practices, nor did the mobile apps notify consumers about Defendants’

practices on Defendants’ behalf. Similarly, neither Defendants nor the mobile apps notified

consumers of the ways in which their Driving Data would be used, nor did consumers agree to

have their data used for Defendants’ own products or services.

38. Even if a Class Member took the extra step to investigate Defendants outside of

their app, navigated to Defendants’ website, and located their privacy disclosures, they would still

not understand what Defendants did with their data. Consumers reading Defendants’ privacy

disclosures are met with a series of untrue and contradictory statements that do not reflect

Defendants’ practices.

39. For example, Defendants state that they “do not sell personal information for

monetary value,”10 which is untrue. Defendants sold a number of data-based products and services

for monetary value that linked a specific app user to their alleged driving behavior. Further,

Defendants do not provide Class Members with the ability to request that Defendants stop selling

their data.

40. Defendants likewise obscured how they used Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ data.

In Defendants’ privacy disclosures, Defendants state that they “[u]se [consumers’] personal data

for analytics and profiling.” But in describing how Defendants “profile” consumers, Defendants

fail to explain that they combine the Driving Data and Personal Data to create a database of driving

10
“Privacy Statement”. Arity. (Effective date: November 1, 2024), https://arity.com/privacy/ (last accessed on
January 13, 2025).
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12

profiles for more than 45 million Americans and selling access to said database. Rather Defendants

describe their profiling activities as follows:

“We use your personal data to assist in our development of

predictive driving models. We may profile [consumers’]
personal data only for the purposes of creating a driving
score (‘Driving Score’), which is used for our analytics
purposes to develop and validate our predictive driving
models.”

41. In the event a Class Member took the extraordinary steps of tracking down

Defendants’ privacy statement, finding the subparagraph describing profiling, parsing through

Defendants’ convoluted description of their profiling activities, and concluding that they did not

want Defendants to use their data to create a “Driving Score” about them, the Class Member still

could do nothing to stop Defendants from collecting their data and creating a Driving Score.

Defendants did not describe, nor provide, a method for a consumer to request that their data not be

used to profile them.

42. Similarly, if a Class Member concluded they did not want Defendants to use their

data for targeted advertising, Defendants instructed them that they could “[l]Learn how to opt out

of targeted advertising including by opting out of the sharing or selling your personal

information”11 by visiting another link. But if the Class Member followed that link, they would be

taken to a page that—instead of offering them a way to submit a request to opt out of targeted

advertising—only provided them with links to several third-party websites, such as the Apple

Support Center. These third-party websites merely contained explanations regarding how a

consumer could turn off certain types of targeted advertising and did not contain a way for a

consumer to submit a request to Defendants specifically.

11
Id.
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

43. Plaintiff seeks relief in his individual capacity and as representative of all others

who are similarly situated. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), Plaintiff

seeks certification of the following class:

All persons residing in the United States and its territories whose
driving information was collected, distributed, stored, and/or sold
by Defendants (the “Class”).

44. Excluded from the above Class are: Defendants, including any entity in which

Defendants have a controlling interest, are a parent or subsidiary, or which are controlled by the

Defendants, as well as the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,

successors, and assigns of Defendants. Also excluded are the judges and court personnel in this

case and any members of their immediate families.

45. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The members of the Class are so numerous

that the joinder of all members is impractical. While the exact number of Class members is

unknown to Plaintiff at this time, Defendants’ misconducts affects millions of drivers.

46. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There are questions of law and

fact common to the Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class

members. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:

a. Whether Defendants collected Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Driving Data;

b. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members consented to such collection;

c. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched;

d. Whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes an invasion of privacy;

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct was knowing and willful;

f. Whether Defendants are liable for damages, and the amount of such damages;

and
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14

g. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.

47. All members of the proposed Class are readily ascertainable. In the Driving Data

and Personal Data they surreptitiously collected, Defendants have access to the addresses and other

contact information for members of the Class, which can be used for providing notice to many

Class Members.

48. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the

class in that all were subject to the same data collection, use, and sharing practices of Defendants.

49. Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff will fairly and

adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff’s Counsel are

competent and experienced in litigating class actions, including privacy litigation.

50. Superiority of Class Action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of

all the members of the Class is impracticable. Furthermore, the adjudication of this controversy

through a class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and potentially conflicting

adjudication of the asserted claims. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as

a class action.

51. Damages for any individual class member are likely insufficient to justify the cost

of individual litigation, so that in the absence of class treatment, Defendant’s violations of law

inflicting substantial damages in the aggregate would go un-remedied without certification of the

Nationwide Class.

52. To the extent not all issues or claims, including the amount of damages,

can be resolved on a class-wide basis, Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4),

reserving the right to seek certification of a class action with respect to particular issues, and
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(5), reserving the right to divide the class into additional

subclasses. To the extent Plaintiff seeks declarative or injunctive relief, Defendants have acted or

refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, rendering certification under Rule

23(b)(2) appropriate.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT, 18 U.S.C. §§2510, et

seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

53. Plaintiff repeats and fully incorporates all factual allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.

54. The Federal Wiretap Act (“FWA”), as amended by the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”), prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of any

wire, oral, or electronic communication.

55. In relevant part, the FWA prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting,

endeavoring to intercept, or procuring “any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any

wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).

56. The FWA also makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally disclose, or

endeavor to disclose, to any other person or to intentionally use, or endeavor to use, the “contents

of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that” the

communication was obtained in violation of the FWA. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) & (d).

57. The FWA provides a private right of action to any person whose wire, oral, or

electronic communication is intercepted, used, or disclosed. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a).

58. The FWA defines “intercept” as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of

any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other

device.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4).

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16

59. The FWA defines “electronic communication” as “any transfer of signs, signals,

[…] data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio,

electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign

commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12).

60. The FWA defines “electronic, mechanical, or other device” as “any device or

apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. §

2510(5).

61. The FWA defines “contents,” with respect to any covered communication, to

include “any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication[.]”

18 U.S.C. § 2510(8).

62. The FWA defines “person” to include “any individual, partnership, association,

joint stock company, trust, or corporation[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6).

63. Defendant corporations are each a person as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2510(6).

64. The data and transmissions within, to, and from Plaintiff’s and Class Members’

mobile devices constitute “electronic communications,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12), as

they are transfers of signals, data, and intelligence transmitted by electromagnetic, photoelectronic

or photooptical systems that affect interstate commerce.

65. As alleged herein, Defendants intercepted, in real time and as it was transmitted,

the contents of electronic communications transmitted within, to, and from Plaintiffs’ mobile

devices and third party apps, and diverted those communications to themselves without consent.

66. As detailed herein, the electronic communications detailed above that

Defendants have intercepted are tied to individual drivers and vehicles, and not anonymized.
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17

67. Plaintiffs and Class Members have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their

vehicles, and Plaintiffs and Class Members reasonably expected privacy while driving their

vehicles and using their mobile devices.

68. Common understanding and experience of how mobile apps work create a

reasonable expectation that an insurer and its affiliates, such as Defendants, would not

surreptitiously intercept and divert the detailed and personal electronic communications described

above.

69. In further violation of the FWA, Defendants have intentionally used or endeavored

to use the contents of the electronic communications described above knowing or having reason

to know that the information was obtained through interception in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2511(1)(a). 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d).

70. Specifically, Defendants used the illicitly obtained information to price insurance

products sold to Plaintiff and Class Members, and sold this information to other insurers.

71. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm and injury due to the

interception, disclosure, and/or use of electronic communications containing their private and

personal information.

72. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged by

Defendants’ interception, disclosure, and/or use of their communications in violation of the

Wiretap Act and are entitled to: (1) appropriate equitable or declaratory relief; (2) damages, in an

amount to be determined at trial, assessed as the greater of (a) the sum of the actual damages

suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class and any profits made by Defendants as a result of the violation

or (b) statutory damages for each Class Member of whichever is the greater of $100 per day per
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18

violation or $10,000; and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably

incurred.

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C.

§§1030, et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

73. Plaintiff repeats and fully incorporates all factual allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.

74. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), enacted in 1986 as part of the

ECPA, prohibits the intentional accessing, without authorization or in excess of authorization, of

a computer under certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a).

75. The CFAA specifically provides that it is unlawful to “intentionally access a

computer without authorization or exceed[] authorized access, and thereby obtain[]…information

from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c).

76. Plaintiffs, as individuals, and Defendants, as corporations, are “persons” within the

meaning of the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(12).

77. A “computer” is defined as “an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or

other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and

includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in

conjunction with such device.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(10).

78. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ cellphones are data-processing devices performing

logical, arithmetic, and storage functions and thus constitute a “computer” within the meaning of

the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).

79. “Exceeds authorized access” is defined as “to access a computer with authorization

and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19

so to obtain.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).

80. A “protected computer” is defined as “a computer . . . which is used in or affecting

interstate or foreign commerce or communication…, [or that] has moved in or otherwise affects

interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).

81. They are used to send and receive information and electronic communications

across state lines and internationally. Thus, they constitute “protected computers” within the

meaning of the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).

82. Through their SDK embedded in third party apps, Defendants intentionally

accessed the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ cellphones without Plaintiffs’ or Class Members’

authorization, or in a manner that exceeded Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ authorization, and

obtained information therefrom in violation of the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).

83. Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered harm and injury due to Defendants’

unauthorized access to the communications containing their private and personal information in

the form of Driving Data, as well as Defendants’ sale of such information to other insurers.

84. A civil action for violation of the CFAA is proper if the conduct involves “loss to

1 or more persons during any 1-year period … aggregating at least $5,000 in value.” Because the

loss to Plaintiff and Class Members during any one year period within the relevant timeframe,

including the loss of their privacy interest in and control over their Driving Data, exceeded $5,000

in aggregate, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to bring this civil action and are entitled to

economic damages, compensatory damages, injunctive, equitable, and all available statutory relief,

as well as their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and other relief as permitted by the CFAA. 18

U.S.C. § 1030(g).
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20

COUNT III – INVASION OF PRIVACY

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

85. Plaintiff repeats and fully incorporates all factual allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.

86. Plaintiff and Class Members have a common law, legally and constitutionally

protected privacy interest in their Driving Data and are entitled to the protection of their Driving

Data against unauthorized access.

87. Plaintiff and Class Members have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their

driving abilities, habits, patterns, and behavior engaged in while they are in their own vehicles,

and in any compilation of highly personalized driving behavior profile resulting from the collection

of such data.

88. As Plaintiffs and Class Members drive to work, visit family, or simply go about

their days, while various third party apps incorporating Defendants’ SDK are installed on their

phones, they have unknowingly created troves of highly sensitive data mapping their respective

personal lives which is then collected, captured, transmitted, accessed, compiled, stored, analyzed,

and sold—all without their knowledge or informed consent.

89. The continued nonconsensual surveillance of an individual in their private capacity,

as Defendants have done and continue to do, represents a fundamental violation of personal

privacy, freedom, and autonomy.

90. As a result of Defendants’ intentionally intrusive conduct, Plaintiff and Class

Members have been and still remain today under pervasive surveillance compromising their

privacy, autonomy, and basic human dignity.

91. Defendants intentionally invaded Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ privacy interests

by deliberately designing SDK and agreeing with third parties to embed this SDK into third party
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21

apps that surreptitiously obtain, improperly gain knowledge of, review, retain, package, and sell

their confidential Driving Data.

92. Defendants’ conduct is highly offensive to a reasonable person and constitutes an

egregious breach of social norms underlying the right to privacy, as evidenced by substantial

research, literature, and governmental enforcement and investigative efforts to protect consumer

privacy against surreptitious technological intrusions.

93. By tracking, collecting, and storing Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Driving Data

without authorization or consent to do so, Defendants intentionally intruded upon Plaintiff’s and

Class Members’ seclusion, solitude, and private life engaged in within the confines of their

respective vehicles, without their knowledge or permission.

94. Defendants have improperly profited from their invasion of Plaintiff’s and Class

Members’ privacy and their use of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Driving Data for their economic

value and their own commercial gain, including by selling Driving Data to other insurers.

95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful invasions of privacy,

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reasonable expectations of privacy were frustrated, exploited,

compromised, and defeated.

96. Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed by Defendants’ wrongful conduct

causing their loss of privacy and the confidentiality of their own private conduct within the

confines of their own vehicle. Defendants have needlessly harmed Plaintiff and Class Members by

capturing their Driving Data through their connected services. This intrusion, disclosure of

information, and loss of privacy and confidentiality has caused Plaintiff and Class Members to

suffer mental anguish, actual damages, loss of value of their personal data, and an invasion of their

privacy in an amount to be determined at trial.

 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22

97. Unless and until enjoined, and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’

wrongful conduct will cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Class Members in that their Driving

Data maintained by Defendants may be viewed, distributed, and used by unauthorized third parties

for years to come.

98. Plaintiff and Class Members seek nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages as

a result of Defendants’ actions. Plaintiff and Class Members seek actual damages suffered, plus

any profits attributable to Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Driving Data.

Punitive damages are warranted because Defendants’ malicious, oppressive, and willful actions

were done in conscious disregard of their rights. Punitive damages are also warranted to deter

Defendants from engaging in future misconduct.

COUNT IV – INVASION OF PRIVACY

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
99. Plaintiff repeats and fully incorporates all factual allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.

100. Defendants designed their SDK and embedded it in third party apps, by means of

which they obtained Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Driving Data for their own commercial use

and for sale. By driving their vehicles, Plaintiff and Class Members unknowingly conferred the

benefit of their Driving Data on Defendants.

101. Defendants knew and appreciated this benefit, and used it for their commercial

advantage – to price insurance products and offer other products and services, and to sell this

data to other insurers.

102. Plaintiff and Class Members received no benefit from this use and sale of their

Driving Data. Indeed, because Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to Defendants’

collection and sale of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Driving Data, they could not and do not
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23

benefit from such practices. It is therefore inequitable for Defendants to retain any profit from

such collection and sale without payment to Plaintiff and Class Members for the value of their

Driving Data.

103. Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for restitution

in the amount of the benefit conferred on GM as a result of its wrongful conduct, including

specifically the value to GM of the Driving Data that GM wrongfully intercepted, collected,

used, and sold to third parties, and the profits GM received or is currently receiving from the use

and sale of that Driving Data.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all Class Members proposed in

this Complaint, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against

Defendants as follows:

a. For an Order certifying the Class as defined herein, and appointing Plaintiff as class

representative;

b. For permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in

the unlawful acts, omissions, and practices described herein;

c. For equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully

retained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct;

d. For an award of actual damages and compensatory damages, in an amount to be

determined;

e. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

f. For an award of costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, as allowable by law; and

g. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

DATED: January 14, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John A. Yanchunis Robert A. Clifford

John A. Yanchunis [email protected]
[email protected] Shannon McNulty
Ronald Podolny* [email protected]
[email protected] CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
Riya Sharma* 120 North LaSalle Street
[email protected] 36th Floor
MORGAN & MORGAN Chicago, IL 60602
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402

*pro hac vice to be filed

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

ILND 44 (Rev. 08/23) CIVIL #:
Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document COVER SHEET
1-1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:25
The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except
as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (See instructions on next page of this form.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
DEMETRIC SIMS, individually and on behalf THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, et al.
of all similarly situated persons

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(Except in U.S. plaintiff cases) (In U.S. plaintiff cases only)
Note: In land condemnation cases, use the ___location of the tract of land involved.

(c) Attorneys (firm name, address, and telephone number) Attorneys (If Known)

MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP, 201 N. Franklin

Street, 7th Floor, Tampa, FL 33602, Tel. 813-223-5505

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Check one box, only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (For Diversity Cases Only.)
(Check one box, only for plaintiff and one box for defendant.)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government not a party.) Incorporated or Principal Place of
Citizen of This State 1 1 4 4
Business in This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate citizenship of parties in Item III.) of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Check one box, only.)
CONTRACT TORTS PRISONER PETITIONS LABOR OTHER STATUTES
510 Motions to Vacate 710 Fair Labor Standards
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY Sentence 375 False Claims Act
Act
365 Personal Injury - 530 General 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
120 Marine 310 Airplane 720 Labor/Management
Product Liability 3729 (a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
367 Health Care/ 535 Death Penalty Relations
320 Assault, Libel & Slander 400 State Reapportionment
Pharmaceutical
130 Miller Act 330 Federal Employers' Personal Injury Other:
Liability 740 Railway Labor Act 410 Antitrust
Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 340 Marine 368 Asbestos Personal 540 Mandamus & Other 751 Family and Medical 430 Banks and Banking
150 Recovery of Overpayment 345 Marine Product Liability Injury Product 550 Civil Rights Leave Act 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment 350 Motor Vehicle Liability 555 Prison Condition 790 Other Labor Litigation 460 Deportation
151 Medicare Act 355 Motor Vehicle Product 560 Civil Detainee - 791 Employee Retirement 470 Racketeer Influenced
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY Conditions and Corrupt
Income Security Act
Student Loan 360 Other Personal Injury of Confinement Organizations
(Excludes Veterans) 362 Personal Injury - Medical 370 Other Fraud 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of Veteran’s Malpractice PROPERTY RIGHTS
371 Truth in Lending 485 Telephone Consumer
Benefits 820 Copyright
160 Stockholders’ Suits 380 Other Personal 830 Patent Protection Act (TCPA)
190 Other Contract Property Damage 835 Patent - Abbreviated 490 Cable/Sat TV
195 Contract Product Liability 385 Property Damage New Drug Application 850 Securities/Commodities/
196 Franchise Product Liability 840 Trademark Exchange
880 Defend Trade Secrets 890 Other Statutory Actions
Act of 2016 (DTSA) 891 Agricultural Arts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS BANKRUPTCY FORFEITURE/PENALTY SOCIAL SECURITY 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 625 Drug Related Seizure 861 HIA (1395ff) 895 Freedom of Information
423 Withdrawal of Property 862 Black Lung (923) Act
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 21 USC 881
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 28 USC 157 690 Other 863 DIWC/DIWW 896 Arbitration
(405(g)) 899 Administrative
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/Accommodations Procedure
245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/ Disabilities- IMMIGRATION 864 SSID Title XVI Act/Review or Appeal of
290 All Other Real Property Employment 462 Naturalization 865 RSI (405(g)) Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - Application 950 Constitutionality of
Other 463 Habeas Corpus – FEDERAL TAXES State Statutes
448 Education Alien Detainee 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
(Prisoner Petition) or Defendant
465 Other Immigration 871 IRS—Third Party
Actions 26 USC 7609
V. ORIGIN (Check one box, only.)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated 5 Transferred 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court or Reopened from Another Litigation - Litigation -
District Transfer Direct File
(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ( Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and VII. PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nature of suit 422 and
423, enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by
write a brief statement of cause.) a judge of this Court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.)
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
VIII. REQUESTED IN Check if this is a class action under Rule 23, Demand $ 5000000 CHECK Yes only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: F.R.CV.P. Jury Demand: Yes No
IX. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions): Judge Case Number
X. Is this a previously dismissed or remanded case? Yes No If yes, Case # Name of Judge
01/14/2025
Date: ___________________________________________ /s/ John A. Yanchunis
Signature of Attorney of Record ______________________________________________
 Case: 1:25-cv-00407 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:26
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.