The core argument against this would, I guess, be simply that someone else would sell it cheaper. Insurance is extremely easy to switch and there are multiple people offering it. Everyone <i>has</i> to buy it, so there&#x27;s definitely a huge market, and it&#x27;s not a monopoly.<p>&gt; What&#x27;s to keep them from selling you tsunami-insurance at Japanese or Californian rates, even though you live in Minnesota?<p>Nothing, but if people are paying way over the odds for it, why wouldn&#x27;t someone else come in and sell it cheaper?<p>&gt; So if private companies can&#x27;t be held to a profit margin, is the answer state-issued insurance?<p>Quite possibly, but how palatable this is depends on the distribution of the thing you&#x27;re insuring. Healthcare, for example, is something that seems to work pretty well being state funded. Helicopter insurance might draw more ire.<p>Cars are a hard one here (UK). They&#x27;re not universally owned or needed, but are common. And then what <i>type</i> of insurance? Just third party for free? Well then there&#x27;s still the same issue with all the other options.<p>&gt; How do we stop this? I think the answer is to simply not allow this level of personalization.<p>I think ensuring that your data is not held by a single insurer but owned by <i>you</i> is important, not a lack of any data. This should come with the ability to migrate your driving data between insurers, so that anyone can quickly get a quote from any insurer. Otherwise you have a lock-in problem where competing insurers don&#x27;t know enough about each others customers to be able to offer decent quotes.