After a five-year investigation, the insurance company Allstate will face a hearing at the California Department of Insurance on May 10, 2022 to determine whether the company overcharged California motorists for auto insurance.  Evidence uncovered during the inquiry has led experts for Consumer Watchdog, the California Department of Insurance, and consumers who have sued the company in federal court to conclude that Allstate engaged in “Price Optimization,” a technique used to determine whether certain customers would accept unjustified premium increases without protest and without shopping for a better deal. Allstate is a leading proponent of the technique throughout the country, according to a detailed exposé published by Consumer Reports in 2020. Consumer Watchdog’s actuarial expert estimates that Allstate overcharged its best California customers—among its safest drivers and most profitable policyholders—by approximately $1.03 billion from 2012 to 2021. Such overcharges are barred by Proposition 103, the voter-approved insurance reform law. If the Insurance Commissioner determines that Allstate engaged in Price Optimization, Allstate could be forced to issue refunds to consumers through the pending federal class action suit. And Allstate would be subject to civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each of tens of thousands of violations of Proposition 103. 
Background: Price Optimization Price Optimization is a method by which an insurance company considers a consumer’s sensitivity to changes in price when the company sets insurance rates and premiums. More precisely, the insurance company considers the likelihood that a customer would tolerate an increase in the price of insurance. This is also known as “elasticity of demand.” Customers who are relatively insensitive to price increases are referred to as “inelastic.” The vast amount of data available about every consumer has made it easier for businesses to discriminate between people who are price sensitive and those who are not.
California Investigation of Allstate  In early 2020, Consumer Reports published a detailed exposé on Allstate’s use of Price Optimization across the nation. It explained that the practical effect of Price Optimization is to create a “suckers list” of customers who are “big spenders and [Allstate] would squeeze more money out of them than others.” (A. Sankin et al., “Why You May Be Paying Too Much for Your Car Insurance,” Consumer Reports, Feb. 25, 2020.) And in 2011, “Allstate executives [were] boast[ing] about the benefits of price optimization to investors, saying it was leading to growth in its auto insurance line.” Id. Allstate did not submit a new rating plan in response to the Commissioner’s 2015 bulletin banning Price Optimization in California.  The current Department of Insurance investigation was prompted by a class action in federal court brought on behalf of California consumers. (Stevenson v. Allstate Ins. Co. and Allstate Indem. Co., No. 15-cv-04788-YGR (N.D. Cal).) In March 2016, the federal court asked the Insurance Commissioner to investigate whether Allstate had engaged in Price Optimization in California. Both in response to the district court’s referral and on its own motion, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones ordered a public inquiry into: “(1) whether Allstate has violated California insurance law by using illegal price optimization; (2) how Allstate implemented any such illegal price optimization in its rate and/or class plan; and (3) how any such illegal price optimization impacted Allstate’s policyholders.” (Notice of Hearing at 3, In the Matter of the Rating Practices of Allstate Ins. Co. and Allstate Indem. Co., File No. NC-2018-00001 (Apr. 27, 2018).)  In 2018, Consumer Watchdog intervened in the agency’s investigation to protect California consumers against Price Optimization and to enforce Proposition 103. Consumer Watchdog is not a party in the federal civil proceeding and does not represent any other party in that matter.
Expert: Allstate Systematically Overcharged California Customers in Violation of Proposition 103  After reviewing the testimony of Allstate’s witnesses and documentary evidence, Consumer Watchdog’s actuary, Mr. Allan Schwartz, concluded that Allstate considered elasticity of demand in setting its premiums from 2012 at least through October 2021. Mr. Schwartz summarized his conclusions as follows: (1)    Allstate engaged in Price Optimization. It did so by taking into account an individual’s or class’s willingness to pay a higher premium relative to other individuals or classes. (2)    The Price Optimization was implemented by charging excessive premiums to certain policyholders through the use of higher than the actuarially indicated values for Allstate customers who were entitled to Allstate’s Distinguished Driver Discount and its Multiple Policy Discount. (3)    The aggregate overcharge to these policyholders from the time of the Allstate filing implementation to date is about $1 billion. These customers are among Allstate’s safest drivers; they are among its most profitable customers (those who purchase home policies from Allstate in addition to the purchase of auto insurance); and they are customers who Allstate considered very likely to remain loyal to the company—least likely to defect due to premium increases. Various documents obtained from Allstate through discovery establish that Allstate considered price elasticity in making those decisions, based on its clear knowledge that these customers were inelastic—that is, unlikely to leave the company if they were required to pay more than they should have. Allstate’s pricing decisions resulted in higher premiums that were unrelated to the risk of loss.
Upcoming Actions The federal court asked the Insurance Commissioner to investigate and report the results of the investigation to the federal court. The public hearing, presently scheduled on May 10 before a California Administrative Law Judge, will be followed by briefing and eventually a proposed decision by the judge. The Insurance Commissioner can accept or reject the proposed decision, request further evidence be taken, or decide the case himself. The Commissioner’s final decision will be forwarded to the federal court for further action, including a determination of Allstate’s liability and its obligation, if any, to compensate Allstate customers who the company overcharged. The Commissioner also has the authority to bring a separate enforcement action against Allstate if the Commissioner determines that the company violated Proposition 103. In such a proceeding, the Commissioner is authorized to impose civil penalties of $5,000 for “each act,” or $10,000 if the violation was found to be willful, for the serious violations uncovered by Consumer Watchdog’s actuary (and echoed by the Pre-filed Direct Testimony of CDI’s own expert). (Ins. Code § 1858.07.) Here, Allstate would be subject to a civil penalty for each instance in which it charged excessive premiums to certain policyholders through the use of Price Optimization. From 2012 to 2021, Allstate committed at least approximately 4,346,736 “act[s]” overcharging policyholders, resulting in a civil fine of no less than $10.86 billion. It is important to note that civil penalties are paid to the state; the Commissioner will not be responsible for obtaining compensation for Allstate’s policyholders, as that is the subject of the class action lawsuit in federal court. It is premature to speculate as to what the Insurance Commissioner will do if Allstate is found to have violated the law. However, there must be consequences when an insurance company violates California law, and the elected Commissioner is responsible for protecting the integrity of the marketplace and the Department’s regulatory authority by treating the results of this investigation with the significance they deserve.  Read the testimony of Allan Schwartz, Consumer Watchdog’s actuary, on his analysis of the evidence. Read the Consumer Reports exposé on Allstate and Price Optimization.
Read follow up stories here. Read the notice of administrative hearing issued by Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.

Latest Allstate Price Optimization Articles


    KABC-LA (ABC) – Los Angeles, CA: Allstate and State Farms Profits Are Four Times the National Average

    Harvey Rosenfield says Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara needs to step in and enforce the law.

    The Los Angeles Times – It’s not just State Farm. Allstate no longer sells new home insurance policies in California

    By Eliyahu Kamisher, Max Reyes, & Biz Carson, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES Californians looking to buy a house face some of the country's most expensive real estate prices and wildfires that threaten scores of housing tracts. Now there's another...

    KCAL-LA – Los Angeles, CA: Allstate & State Farm Are Requesting Massive Rate Hikes

    Even without issuing new policies a farm and Allstate are asking the state's insurance commissioner for massive rate hikes, 28% for State Farm and 40% for Allstate.

    Consumer Group Calls For Denial Of Allstate Rate Increase In California, Pushes Instead For Refunds

    By Dave LaChance, REPAIRER DRIVEN NEWS September 27, 2022 Public interest organization Consumer Watchdog (CW) has called on California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to deny Allstate’s request for a 6.9% auto insurance rate increase, and to instead pressure the carrier...

    Consumer Watchdog Says California Drivers Need Protections Against Misuse Of Technology By Insurers

    By Dave LaChance, REPAIRER DRIVEN NEWS September 23, 2022 Consumer protection organization Consumer Watchdog is urging California’s insurance commissioner to protect the state’s residents against the misuse of computer algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) by insurers. At a public meeting Wednesday...

    Calls For Insurance Commissioner To Reject Allstate’s Proposed Price Hike

    By Lyle Adriano, INSURANCE BUSINESS September 23, 2022 Consumer Watchdog has issued a public statement petitioning California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to reject Allstate Insurance’s proposal to raise auto insurance rates by $165, as well...

    Consumer Watchdog Calls on Insurance Commissioner Lara to Reject Allstate’s Job-Based Insurance Rate Discrimination, Adopt Regulations to Stop the Practice Industrywide

    Los Angeles, CA – Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara should reject Allstate’s proposed $165 million auto insurance rate hike and its two-tiered job- and education-based discriminatory rating system, wrote Consumer Watchdog in a letter sent to the Commissioner today....

    Californians Need Protection Against Insurance Industry’s Use of Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, Consumer Watchdog Will Tell Insurance Commissioner

    Los Angeles, CA -- The insurance industry’s use of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence to set premiums and determine who can get insurance coverage is a serious threat to Californians and a violation of California law, Consumer Watchdog will...

    Litigation In The News

    Support Consumer Watchdog

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    To be updated with all the latest news, press releases and special reports.