Florida man sues a major auto company for taking your personal information and selling it, and says – ‘It will only get worse’

When Emerald Morrow of 10 Tampa Bay’s 10 Investigates opened her report, she didn’t treat it like a sci-fi story about “smart cars.” 

She treated it like a consumer warning about a system most drivers barely understand until it shows up in their wallet, usually through a higher insurance bill and a lot of unanswered questions.

At the desk, Dave Wagner and Courtney Robinson set the tone the same way many people talk about it at home: modern vehicles are packed with technology, and if your car is basically a computer on wheels, it’s fair to wonder what it’s recording and who else might be seeing it.

Morrow’s investigation focuses on a Polk County man who believes his car’s connected features didn’t just make driving easier – he says they created a stream of personal data that ended up being sold, and he’s now trying to force that argument into the open through a lawsuit.

“It Can Only Get Worse” And Why He’s Fighting

In Morrow’s first sit-down interview with him, Phil Siefke comes across less like someone chasing attention and more like someone who thinks the guardrails are missing. 

His warning is blunt: he tells Morrow that if the alleged privacy violations aren’t “handled and litigated right now,” then “it can only get worse,” because the incentive to collect and sell information is simply too strong.

That’s the heart of his case, and it’s also why this story travels fast with regular drivers. 

People can accept that a car might log basic mechanical information for maintenance, but they react differently when the conversation shifts to continuous monitoring of behavior – the kind of information that can be used to judge you, price you, or profile you without you realizing it.

Morrow lays out Siefke’s central claim in plain terms: he alleges a major automaker and its affiliate company collected private information and sold it to third parties without permission, and he says the practice is so widespread that he’s pushing for a class action case rather than a one-off dispute.

What He Says Was Collected: More Than Just Location

According to Emerald Morrow, Siefke filed a class action lawsuit in a Texas court accusing Toyota and an affiliate company called Connected Analytics Services of collecting and selling private information to third parties such as Progressive Insurance without consent. 

The detail that makes this story feel bigger than “GPS tracking” is the breadth of what Siefke says was included, because he claims it goes beyond simple location history.

Morrow reports that Siefke isn’t only worried about speed and where a vehicle travels, even though he says that’s concerning enough on its own. 

He claims the information being captured includes how hard a driver brakes, seatbelt status, and even “image and voice data,” which is the kind of phrase that immediately makes viewers picture far more than an odometer reading.

This is where the emotional reaction starts to make sense, because consumers often think of “connected services” as something like better navigation or emergency assistance, not a pipeline that could be used to package up their habits and deliver them to third parties. 

Morrow’s reporting makes clear that Siefke’s fear isn’t just the existence of data, but the loss of control over where it goes once it’s gathered.

The Moment That Spooked Him: A Driving Profile Already Waiting

Siefke tells Emerald Morrow that the moment his suspicion hardened into anger came after he bought his 2021 Toyota RAV4 and went looking for insurance, expecting a normal quote process. 

Instead, he says he discovered Progressive already had a “comprehensive driving profile,” and what stopped him cold was how specific it appeared – including a “hard brake” event from the day before.

A detail like that changes the whole feel of the story, because it suggests something far more precise than general demographic pricing. If an insurer already has behavior-level driving data tied to you, and you never knowingly enrolled in a program for that, the immediate question becomes: how did they get it, and why was it there before you ever asked for it?

Emerald Morrow doesn’t present Siefke as claiming he’s a perfect driver who should never be rated, because that’s not the argument. 

The argument, as he presents it, is about consent and transparency: if companies are collecting and selling, consumers deserve to know clearly, in ordinary language, what is being captured and where it may end up.

“A Red Flag” Comparison To Warrant-Only Data

In one of the sharpest moments of Morrow’s report, Siefke makes a comparison designed to cut through all the fine print and technical jargon. 

He tells her that if an insurance company can access data that local, state, and federal law enforcement would need a warrant to obtain, “that should automatically throw a red flag up to any consumer.”

That line resonates because it frames the issue in a way normal people immediately understand: if government agencies need legal process to access certain information, it feels wrong – or at least dangerous – for private companies to get it casually, then trade it like a commodity.

Whether the courts ultimately agree with his claims is its own process, but the concern isn’t hard to grasp. A system can be “legal” on paper and still feel deceptive in practice if the consumer’s “agreement” comes from a quick tap on a phone screen when they’re trying to activate basic features.

Toyota’s Position In Court Records: You Accepted The Terms

Emerald Morrow reports that her investigative team reached out to all the parties named in the lawsuit for comment, and she notes Progressive said it does not comment on litigation, while Toyota did not respond directly to her inquiry. 

However, Morrow explains Toyota’s argument as it appears in court records, and it centers on the idea that Siefke accepted the rules when he activated connected services.

According to Morrow, Toyota alleges Siefke activated connected services and accepted Toyota’s terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision and a class action waiver. 

Morrow also describes what Toyota says those terms disclosed: that by hitting “accept,” a consumer agrees their vehicle will wirelessly transmit location, driving, and vehicle health data to Toyota and its affiliates on a regular and continuous basis, for connected services and internal research, development, and data analysis.

This is the spot where the public’s frustration usually boils over, because the legal logic and the human experience don’t match. 

Most people don’t read those screens like contracts negotiated between equals; they read them like an annoying hurdle between them and their dashboard features, which is why the question becomes less “did you click” and more “was the disclosure clear enough that an average person truly understood the trade.”

The Attorney’s Warning: Data Is The Product

Emerald Morrow introduces John Yanchunis, the attorney representing Siefke, and his argument is blunt about how the modern economy works. Yanchunis tells Morrow, “Data is the new oil,” and he argues that some of the largest companies don’t make value by manufacturing things so much as by collecting consumer information and using it for profit.

That’s a familiar phrase, but in the context of cars it hits harder, because vehicles aren’t optional toys for most Americans; they’re necessities that people depend on for work, family, and basic life. 

When the “product” becomes your behavior, the question shifts from convenience to power – who holds it, who sells it, and who pays for it when the pricing models change.

Yanchunis also tells Morrow that even if a case like this succeeds, it may only be a first step, because he believes there is a “tremendous amount” of missing legislation when it comes to protecting consumer privacy. 

In other words, even if a lawsuit forces a change in one place, the larger machine keeps running unless laws catch up to the technology.

Telematics Can Help Some Drivers, But Only If It’s Truly Voluntary

To her credit, Emerald Morrow doesn’t frame telematics as purely evil, because the idea itself can be useful when it’s honestly presented. 

She reports the Consumer Federation of America says there are benefits, including the possibility that telematics could lower costs for drivers deemed to be good drivers and potentially create a fairer risk assessment than older models that penalize people based on factors like marital status, job title, credit score, and other socioeconomic measures.

That’s the positive case for behavior-based pricing: pay for how you drive, not who you are. But Morrow also reports the group acknowledges privacy concerns and the possibility of exaggerated savings claims, which is important because the “fairness” argument falls apart if drivers are being tracked by default or don’t understand what they opted into.

A system that rewards good behavior can still be abusive if the data collection is murky and the consent is buried, and that’s why stories like this land with such force. 

People aren’t rejecting technology; they’re rejecting being quietly converted into a data stream without meaningful control over what happens next.

What You Can Do If This Makes You Nervous

Morrow’s report doesn’t stop at outrage – she gives viewers a practical way to check what might be happening in their own vehicle. She says a group called Privacy4Cars offers a free report if you enter your VIN number, which can help consumers understand what data their car may be capable of tracking.

She also emphasizes the value of going into your settings and verifying what you have agreed to share, because in many cases the choice is presented as a “feature,” not as a privacy decision. 

Siefke reinforces that point in Morrow’s interview by telling viewers to verify their privacy settings and whether they agreed to let data be shared, while also claiming that in his situation the data may have been resold even without explicit agreement.

And he adds the part that makes drivers pay attention: if you don’t think this kind of information affects your rates, he says there’s a “very good chance” that it does.

The Bedroom Camera Analogy And The Long-Term Fear

Near the end of Emerald Morrow’s piece, Siefke offers a comparison meant to make the risk feel concrete rather than abstract. 

He points out that many people already keep devices beside their bed – phones, Alexa, Siri – and he asks viewers to imagine what it means if data from those devices becomes widely available and tradable, because once it exists, you don’t control who gets it later.

Then he asks the question that cuts through the noise: would you let someone put a camera with sound inside your bedroom?

It’s not a perfect analogy in a technical sense, but it captures the fear in a way that most consumers instantly understand. The real worry isn’t only collection; it’s permanence — the idea that data can be copied, sold, leaked, subpoenaed, hacked, bundled, and repurposed long after you forgot you ever clicked “accept.”

Emerald Morrow reports a judge ruled the case must go to arbitration, and she explains that Siefke wants to avoid that route and is working with his legal team to see whether the case can proceed in a way that could potentially benefit consumers through a class action. 

That matters because arbitration often keeps disputes quieter and more individualized, while class actions bring broader public scrutiny and bigger consequences.

Morrow also notes that this isn’t the first time the industry has faced questions like this, pointing out that earlier in the year the FTC reached a settlement with GM that would ban the company from sharing geolocation and driver behavior data with consumer reporting agencies for five years. That reference widens the frame, because it suggests the temptation to monetize driver data isn’t isolated – it’s becoming part of the business model.

And that’s why Siefke’s warning sticks, even for people who aren’t driving a Toyota. If data really is the new oil, then the only real question is whether consumers will be treated like owners of their information, or like a resource that gets extracted until somebody finally says stop.