House Bill 81 would regulate how insurance institutions and agents in North Carolina may use vehicle telematics data, which is information about a person’s driving habits collected through a tracking device, app, or software in a vehicle or mobile device. The bill requires insurers to notify applicants and policyholders how telematics data will be used, obtain written consent before collecting, receiving, selling, sharing, or otherwise using that data, and tell consumers that consent may be revoked at any time. It also requires insurers to provide a reasonable way to revoke consent and to stop using the data within 24 hours after revocation.
The bill also amends the state’s insurance definitions statute to define “vehicle telematics” and to incorporate that definition into the insurance code. In addition, it revises the cyberstalking statute to clarify that the prohibition on unauthorized electronic tracking devices does not apply to insurers using telematics, so long as they obtain written consent under the new insurance-law requirements. Violations of the new telematics section would be treated as both an unfair trade practice under the insurance code and an unfair and deceptive trade practice under G.S. 75-1.1. The act would take effect October 1, 2025, and apply to insurance contracts issued, renewed, or amended on or after that date.
Impact
The bill would add a new consumer-consent framework to Chapter 58 governing insurance use of telematics data and would create a direct enforcement mechanism through both insurance unfair-trade-practice law and the state’s general unfair and deceptive trade practices statute. It would also modify the cyberstalking law to carve out insurer telematics use when written consent is obtained, reducing the risk that lawful insurance-based tracking could be treated as prohibited electronic surveillance. The practical effect is to limit insurers’ ability to use driving-data products for underwriting, pricing, or other purposes unless consumers are clearly informed and agree in writing, with a fast revocation process.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally consumer-protective and privacy-focused, with its core purpose being to restrict insurer access to vehicle telematics unless the consumer affirmatively consents. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader partisan or stakeholder sentiment. Based on the text alone, the measure is framed as a transparency and consent bill rather than a broad prohibition on telematics use.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between consumer privacy and insurers’ use of telematics for underwriting, pricing, fraud prevention, and risk assessment. Supporters would likely favor the written-consent requirement, revocation rights, and 24-hour shutdown rule as meaningful privacy protections. Opponents or affected industry stakeholders may object that the bill could limit data-driven insurance products, increase compliance burdens, and create uncertainty about how quickly telematics-based services must be disabled after consent is withdrawn. The cyberstalking carveout may also draw attention because it expressly exempts insurer telematics use from a criminal tracking prohibition when consent is obtained.
Motor vehicles; impoundment conditions and procedures, further provided; redemption procedures, further provided; issuance of local identification cards, restrictions provided