Arity Lawsuit Explained: Texas AG and Class Action Cases

The Arity lawsuit refers to two parallel legal actions against Allstate and its data analytics subsidiary Arity over allegations that the company secretly collected driving data from tens of millions of Americans through popular mobile apps and sold that data to insurance companies. One is an enforcement action filed by the Texas Attorney General in January 2025. The other is a consolidated federal class action in Illinois combining 15 private cases, where a judge ruled in March 2026 that 35 of 38 claims can proceed to trial.¹

What Arity Is Accused of Doing

Allstate created Arity in 2016 to support usage-based insurance programs like Drivewise. The company grew into a much larger data broker and ad-tech operation that says it has connections to more than 200 million U.S. drivers and collects over one billion miles of driving data per day.²

According to the lawsuits, Arity embedded a software development kit called the Driving Engine into third-party mobile apps. Once installed, it ran in the background and captured GPS coordinates as often as every 15 seconds, along with speed, acceleration, braking, phone usage while driving, and trip start and end locations.³

The apps identified as carrying the SDK include GasBuddy, Life360, MyRadar, Routely, Fuel Rewards, and formerly WeatherBug.² The Texas complaint alleges Arity deliberately targeted apps that already asked users for location permissions, so adding the tracking did not trigger a fresh consent prompt. Arity allegedly paid app developers millions of dollars to integrate the code.⁴ Arity also pulled driving data from connected vehicles through partnerships with Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, and Lexus, and purchased additional data from Mazda, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, and Ram.³

Arity packaged the collected information in two main ways. Its ArityIQ database, which the company said held driving data linked to more than 40 million drivers, was sold to insurance companies to price policies, assess risk, and make underwriting decisions. The lawsuits allege insurers used those scores to raise premiums, deny coverage, or drop customers.³ Arity also sold driving-based audience segments to advertisers through marketplaces like LiveRamp and The Trade Desk, and its own privacy policy said it kept mobile ad IDs and geolocation data for targeted advertising for up to three years.²

A central allegation is that the data marketed as “driving behavior” was often unreliable because it came from a phone’s location rather than from the vehicle. The Texas complaint said the system frequently could not tell a driver from a passenger, meaning people may have received poor driving scores based on someone else’s trips.³

The Texas Attorney General Case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Allstate and Arity on January 13, 2025, in what his office described as the first enforcement action ever brought by a state attorney general under a comprehensive state privacy law. The complaint alleged the companies unlawfully collected, used, and sold the location and movement data of more than 45 million Americans without adequate notice or informed consent.⁴

Under the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, which took effect in July 2024, the suit alleges Arity failed to provide an accessible privacy notice, failed to disclose that it may sell sensitive data, failed to obtain affirmative consent before processing precise geolocation, and failed to give consumers a way to opt out of data sales and targeted advertising. The AG’s office gave Arity the statutory 30-day window to cure the violations starting November 29, 2024; according to the complaint, that window closed on December 29, 2024, without cure.⁵

The lawsuit also alleges Arity violated the Texas Data Broker Law by failing to register with the Texas Secretary of State by the March 1, 2024 deadline, and brings claims under the Texas Insurance Code for unfair and deceptive practices in the business of insurance.⁵ The case remains pending.

The Federal Class Action

Consumers began filing their own suits in early 2025. By April 10, 2025, fifteen cases had been consolidated into In re: Allstate & Arity Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00407, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 27, 2025.⁶

The consolidated complaint brought 38 claims under federal law and the laws of 20 states.⁷ Federal claims include violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act, plus common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment.⁸ State-level claims cover consumer fraud, wiretapping, electronic tracking device prohibitions, and unfair competition statutes from California, Illinois, Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and others.⁹ Plaintiffs also allege Arity violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by inaccurately reporting driving behavior data used in insurance decisions, and are seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a jury trial.

Allstate and Arity’s Response

Allstate and Arity moved to dismiss on July 10, 2025. They argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the companies collected their specific data or raised their individual rates, and that users went through an “explicit opt-in process” when using apps powered by Arity’s technology.⁷ Allstate also invoked the filed rate doctrine, arguing its state-approved insurance rates cannot be challenged in court, and relied on the Federal Wiretap Act’s party exception, contending the third-party apps consented to disclose the data when they integrated the SDK.¹⁰

The March 2026 Ruling

On March 3, 2026, Judge Daniel denied most of the motion to dismiss, letting 35 of the 38 claims move forward. Only three counts were dismissed.⁶

On the filed rate doctrine, the judge agreed that claims directly challenging how rates were calculated could implicate the doctrine, but found plaintiffs also sought statutory damages that do not depend on challenging the rate itself. Because the defendants did not address that point in their reply brief, most counts survived.⁹ On wiretapping, the court rejected the argument that app developers’ consent to the SDK shielded Allstate from liability, ruling that a monetary motive for interception does not block the Wiretap Act’s “crime or tort” exemption.¹⁰

The court declined to consider the user agreements and app screenshots Allstate wanted to introduce, saying it was premature to resolve factual disputes about which privacy policies were in effect and whether each plaintiff had accepted them. On FCRA preemption, the judge held that FCRA does not preempt state law requirements for companies to notify consumers before pulling their data, though he found FCRA does preempt certain state claims against Arity involving consent to furnish consumer reports for insurance underwriting.⁹

The defendants filed their answer to the remaining claims on April 24, 2026. No trial date has been set.⁶

What This Means If You Used One of the Apps

If you used GasBuddy, Life360, MyRadar, Routely, Fuel Rewards, or WeatherBug on a phone whose location services were on, you may be within the group whose data the lawsuits say Arity collected. The federal class action is still at the pleadings stage and no class has been certified yet, so there is no settlement to claim and no deadline to meet right now. Keller Rohrback LLP is among the firms listed on the consolidated docket representing plaintiffs.⁶ The Texas AG case is a government enforcement action, not a consumer suit, so individuals are not parties to it. Both matters remained pending as of mid-2026.

1
Missouri Lawyers Media. Allstate Rules Lawsuit Cellphone Tracking Drivers
2
U.S. PIRG. Allstate Arity Selling Data
3
Office of the Texas Attorney General. Allstate and Arity Petition Filed
4
Office of the Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Allstate and Arity
5
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Texas Is Enforcing Its State Data Privacy Law. So Should Other States
6
Keller Rohrback LLP. Allstate Driving Data Privacy Litigation
7
Fox Business. Allstate Ordered to Face Privacy Lawsuit Over Alleged Cellphone Tracking of Drivers
8
U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill. Mahoney et al. v. Allstate et al., Case No. 25-cv-01465
9
Justia. Sims v. The Allstate Corporation et al.
10
Repairer Driven News. Court Allows Suit Alleging Allstate Collected and Sold Consumer Data to Move Forward, Dismisses Portion