Allstate Subsidiary Says Court Should Drop it From Location Data Case
Texas’ claims that an Allstate subsidiary collected and shared Texans' driving data with the insurer are based on assumptions, not facts or evidence, the subsidiary, Arity 875, said in an appeals court brief August 4. As such, Arity, a data analytics company, urged the Texas 15th Court of Appeals to drop it from a lawsuit.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued Allstate and Arity in January for the alleged unlawful collection, use and sale of the location data from Texans’ cellphones through software secretly embedded into mobile safety apps like Life360 (see 2501130047).
In an appeals brief, Arity termed "nonsense" the state's allegations that it "shared Texans’ driving data with unspecified ‘Allstate’ insurance entities, unbeknownst to drivers, so that those insurers could use the data to manipulate Texans’ insurance rates and coverage.”
A previous case offered "uncontroverted jurisdictional evidence, which the State blithely ignores," establishing that Arity doesn't "share individuals’ driving data with any insurers for pricing or underwriting purposes -- full stop,” the brief added.
Arity also said that Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over it, and many instances of unlawful behavior in the complaint occurred outside Texas. The data collection firm also reiterated that it's not an insurance company as another reason why it should be dropped from the case.
In the January complaint, Paxton alleged that Allstate’s actions violated the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA). Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Allstate defended Arity’s practices (see 2501140017).
Texas appealed case 25-01-00561 from the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, in April to the 15th Court of Appeals because it has exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction over matters brought by the state. The case became 15-25-00082-CV at the appeals court.