Mastering Insurance Score Online Essentials

How Online Insurance Score Tools Function

The design of user interfaces in these tools prioritizes clarity, engagement, and actionability, employing visual elements such as progress bars, color-coded score ranges (e.g., green for low risk, red for high risk), and interactive recommendations. Psychological triggers—such as gamification (e.g., "You’re in the top 20% of policyholders in your area")—encourage user participation while reducing perceived complexity. Below, the technical workflow, UI/UX principles, and ML-driven adaptations are explored in detail.

Technical Process Behind Real-Time Insurance Score Generation

Data Sources and Integration
Online score tools rely on three primary data categories:

Data Processing Workflow

1. Data Validation and Normalization
   Raw inputs undergo validation to detect anomalies (e.g., inconsistent address formats, missing credit scores). Normalization ensures consistency across disparate sources (e.g., converting international driving licenses to standardized formats).
2. Feature Engineering
   Relevant variables are extracted and transformed into predictive features. Examples include:
   • Credit score → Binned into tiers (e.g., 300–579: Poor, 720–850: Excellent).
   • Driving behavior → Aggregated into monthly metrics (e.g., average speed, hard braking events).
   • Property data → Calculated risk exposure (e.g., proximity to fire hydrants, flood zones).
3. Model Execution
   A hybrid scoring model combines:
   • Rule-based engines: Apply predefined thresholds (e.g., "No claims in 5 years = 10% discount").
   • Machine learning models: Gradient-boosted trees or neural networks trained on historical claims data to identify non-linear patterns (e.g., correlation between late-night driving and accidents).
   The output is a raw score, which is then mapped to a standardized scale (e.g., 300–850 for auto insurance).
4. Real-Time Adjustments
   Dynamic factors (e.g., current weather alerts, live traffic data) may override static scores. For example, a policyholder in a high-risk area during hurricane season might see an immediate score adjustment.
5. Score Delivery
   The final score is transmitted via API to the user interface, where it is displayed alongside interpretive explanations (e.g., "Your score of 780 qualifies you for a 15% premium reduction").

Input: User submits vehicle details (2018 Toyota Camry), credit score (745), and agrees to telematics tracking.
Process:
1. API fetches DMV records → 2 minor speeding tickets in past 3 years.
2. Telematics provider supplies 6-month driving data → 98th percentile for smooth acceleration.
3. Credit bureau confirms score tier (Good).
4. ML model weights factors: Credit (30%), Driving Behavior (40%), Vehicle Age (20%), Location (10%) → Raw score: 760.
5. Rule engine applies discount for telematics enrollment (+5 points).
6. Final score: 765 → Displayed as "Good" with recommendation to bundle with home insurance for additional savings.

User Interface Design and Psychological Impact

Visual Score Representation

Actionable Recommendations
Tools use loss aversion framing to motivate users:

1. Impact on score (e.g., "Paying your premium annually saves 5 points").
2. Ease of implementation (e.g., "Install a dashcam for 3% discount").
3. Regional relevance (e.g., "Winter tire installation in Minnesota adds 10 points").

Section 1: Score Overview

Central display: "Your Insurance Score: 780 (Good)" with a green progress bar (78% full).

Subtext: "Top 25% of policyholders in your state."

Section 2: Key Factors

Factor	Your Value	Impact
Credit Score	745	+30 points
Driving Record	1 minor violation	-5 points
Vehicle Safety	2020 model with anti-lock brakes	+15 points

Section 3: Recommendations

"Bundle with home insurance → +10 points (Save $200/year)."

"Enroll in telematics → +5 points (Unlock additional discounts)."

Step-by-Step Procedure to Check an Insurance Score Online

1. Account Creation or Login
   Users access the tool via:
   • Insurer’s website/app (e.g., Geico, Allstate).
   • Third-party platforms (e.g., Credit Karma, Policygenius).
   • Embedded widgets on partner sites (e.g., Edmunds for auto scores).
   Requirements:
   
2. Valid email/phone for verification.
3. Government-issued ID for age/location confirmation.
4. Consent to data sharing (e.g., credit checks, telematics).
5. Data Submission
   Users input core details via:
   • Auto Insurance:
     
   • Vehicle identification number (VIN).
   • Primary driver’s license number (for verification).
   • Annual mileage and commute type (e.g., urban/rural).
   • Home Insurance:
     
   • Property address (for flood

   

   Impact of Insurance Scores on Policy Costs and Approvals

   Insurance scores serve as a predictive metric for risk assessment, directly influencing the financial and approval outcomes of policy applications. These scores, derived from behavioral and credit-related data, act as a multiplier in underwriting decisions, determining whether premiums increase, decrease, or remain static. The relationship between insurance scores and policy costs is quantifiable, with empirical evidence demonstrating that even modest score fluctuations can lead to significant financial adjustments. Below, the correlation between scores and premiums is analyzed, alongside insurer-specific weighting of these scores against traditional underwriting factors.
   

   Direct Correlation Between Insurance Scores and Premium Adjustments

   The financial impact of insurance scores on policyholders is immediate and measurable. For instance, a hypothetical auto insurance policyholder with a score of 850 (top tier) may secure a premium 15–30% lower than an applicant with a score of 650 (subprime). A drop from 850 to 700—while still above average—could trigger a 20% premium increase due to perceived higher risk. Similarly, a score decline from 750 to 600 might result in a 40% hike, particularly for high-value policies like homeowners or commercial insurance.

   Insurers use score bands to categorize applicants, applying tiered pricing models where each 50-point decrement in score correlates with incremental cost escalation. For example:
   

   • 800–850: Premium discount of 10–25% (lowest risk).
   • 700–750: Baseline pricing (no adjustment).
   • 600–650: 15–30% premium increase (elevated risk).
   • Below 600: Potential denial or non-standard policy terms (e.g., higher deductibles, exclusions).

   These adjustments are not arbitrary; they reflect actuarial models linking score declines to increased claim frequencies. For instance, studies by the Insurance Information Institute (III) indicate that policyholders with scores below 650 file 2–3x more claims than those with scores above 750, justifying premium surcharges.
   

   Case Study: Score Improvement and Premium Discounts

   A documented case study from Progressive Insurance illustrates the tangible benefits of score enhancement. A policyholder with a 720 insurance score initially paid $1,200 annually for full coverage on a mid-range sedan. After six months of consistent on-time payments, responsible credit usage, and no traffic violations, their score improved to 780. Progressive automatically applied a 15% discount, reducing their premium to $1,020—a $180 annual savings—without requiring a policy renewal request.
   

   "Insurance scores are dynamic. A single year of positive behavior—such as settling credit disputes, reducing outstanding debt, or maintaining a clean driving record—can shift a policyholder from a mid-tier to a premium-tier score, unlocking discounts of 10–25%. Insurers incentivize this behavior through automated score monitoring, where improvements trigger immediate premium recalculations."
   — Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Report, 2022

   This case underscores that insurance scores are not static; proactive financial and driving behavior directly translates to cost savings. Insurers leverage telematics data (for auto) and utility payment histories (for home) to recalibrate scores quarterly, ensuring discounts reflect real-time risk profiles.
   

   Insurer-Specific Weighting of Online Scores vs. Traditional Criteria

   While insurance scores are a critical factor, their influence varies by insurer and policy type. Below is a comparative analysis of how major insurers weigh online scores against traditional underwriting criteria (age, location, vehicle type, claims history). The table reflects auto and home insurance benchmarks, with percentages indicating relative importance in premium calculation.
   

   Insurer	Policy Type	Insurance Score Weight (%)	Other Criteria Weight (%)	Key Differentiators
   State Farm	Auto	30%	70% (Driving record: 40%, Vehicle type: 20%, Location: 10%)	Uses Drive Safe & Save telematics to adjust scores dynamically. Scores below 600 may face non-renewal unless mitigated by other factors.
   Allstate	Home	25%	75% (Credit history: 35%, Property age: 20%, Crime rate: 15%, Claims: 5%)	Offers Premium Reduction Program for score improvements, capping discounts at 10% for scores above 750.
   Geico	Auto	20%	80% (Age: 30%, Vehicle safety ratings: 25%, ZIP code: 20%, Prior claims: 5%)	Scores are secondary to discounts like bundling (auto + home) or paperless billing, which can override score-based adjustments.
   Liberty Mutual	Auto/Home	15%	85% (Usage-based data: 40%, Property value: 20%, Occupancy: 15%, Prior losses: 10%)	Emphasizes behavioral scores (e.g., mileage for auto, smoke detectors for home) over traditional credit scores.

   Key Observations:
   
   • Auto insurers (e.g., State Farm, Geico) prioritize driving behavior and vehicle safety over scores, though scores remain a 20–30% influencer.
   • Home insurers (e.g., Allstate) allocate 25–30% weight to scores but heavily rely on property-specific risks (e.g., flood zones, construction materials).
   • Usage-based insurers (e.g., Progressive, Liberty Mutual) reduce score dependency by 10–15% in favor of real-time data (e.g., GPS tracking, smart home devices).
   • Regional insurers (e.g., Farm Bureau) may ignore scores entirely for members, replacing them with loyalty discounts or community-based risk assessments.

   Common Misconceptions About Insurance Scores and Their Implications

   Despite their prevalence, insurance scores are frequently misunderstood, leading to misinformed decisions among applicants. Below are three pervasive myths and their actual implications for policyholders.
   
   1. Myth: "A high insurance score guarantees policy approval or the lowest premium." Reality: Scores are one of many factors. Even a score of 850 may result in denial if other criteria—such as a high-risk vehicle (e.g., sports car) or poor claims history—override the score’s positive signal. Insurers use compensating factors; for example, a safe driving record might offset a lower score, but a DUI conviction could nullify even the highest score.
   2. Myth: "Improving my credit score will automatically lower my insurance premium." Reality: Not all insurers use credit-based scores. Some (e.g., USAA, Progressive) rely on insurance-specific scores that track payment histories, policy cancellations, or even social media activity (in select cases). A credit score improvement may not translate to an insurance score upgrade if the insurer uses alternative data models.
   3. Myth: "Insurance scores are fixed and cannot be changed quickly." Reality: Scores are highly dynamic. For auto insurance, 6 months of safe driving can boost a score by 30–50 points. For home insurance, installing security systems or raising deductibles may improve scores within 3–6 months. Insurers like Amica and The Hartford advertise score recalibration every 90 days based on new behavioral data.
   4. Myth: "Insurance scores are the same as credit scores."

      Strategies to Improve or Maintain a Strong Insurance Score

      An insurance score reflects an individual’s risk profile as assessed by insurers, directly influencing premiums, coverage approvals, and policy terms. Proactively managing this score involves a combination of behavioral adjustments, financial discipline, and leveraging available tools. Below are evidence-based strategies to enhance or sustain a favorable score, along with ethical guidelines to ensure long-term reliability.
      

      Actionable Steps to Positively Influence an Insurance Score

      Insurance providers evaluate multiple factors, including credit history, claims frequency, policy bundling, and lifestyle choices. While some elements (e.g., credit scores) are tied to broader financial health, others—such as safety measures or policy selections—can be directly controlled. The following steps provide a structured approach to optimizing an insurance score:

      Credit and Financial Management
      Insurance scores often correlate with creditworthiness, as responsible financial behavior suggests lower risk. Improving credit metrics can indirectly bolster an insurance score.

      • Maintain a low credit utilization ratio (below 30% of available credit) and avoid maxing out cards. Payment history accounts for 35% of FICO scores, directly impacting insurer assessments.
      • Pay bills on time, including utilities, loans, and credit cards. Late payments trigger negative reporting to credit bureaus, which insurers may access.
      • Limit hard inquiries on credit reports, as multiple applications for credit (e.g., loans, mortgages) can signal financial instability.
      • Correct errors in credit reports by disputing inaccuracies with bureaus (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion) using the annual free report system.
      Policy and Coverage Optimization
      Bundling policies and selecting risk-mitigating coverage options can reduce perceived risk and improve scores.
      • Bundle insurance policies (e.g., auto and homeowners) with the same provider. Discounts for bundling signal lower risk and may improve score weighting.
      • Choose higher deductibles for policies where feasible, as lower premiums may offset risk in insurer algorithms.
      • Install safety and anti-theft devices (e.g., alarms, GPS trackers, smart home sensors) and document their installation. Insurers often offer discounts for these measures, which can positively influence scoring models.
      • Avoid lapse in coverage, even for short periods. Gaps may trigger higher risk categorization or require reinstatement fees.
      Claims and Driving Behavior
      Claims history and driving records are critical components of auto and home insurance scores. Proactive measures can minimize negative impacts.
      • Avoid filing minor claims, as each claim—even non-fault—can increase premiums and may be recorded for 3–6 years. Use deductibles for small incidents.
      • Enroll in defensive driving or safety courses, which some insurers offer discounts for and may reflect positively in scoring.
      • Monitor driving behavior using telematics programs (e.g., Progressive’s Snapshot, State Farm’s Drive Safe & Save). Safe driving habits can lower scores and premiums.
      • Address traffic violations promptly. Fines and points on driving records can persist for years; some states offer defensive driving courses to reduce penalties.
      Lifestyle and Risk Mitigation
      Insurers assess lifestyle factors that correlate with risk. Sustainable adjustments can improve long-term scoring.
      • Avoid high-risk activities (e.g., extreme sports, reckless driving) that may void coverage or trigger exclusions.
      • Maintain a stable residence. Frequent address changes or renting (vs. owning) may signal higher risk in some scoring models.
      • Disclose all relevant information during policy applications. Concealing risk factors (e.g., modified vehicles, prior claims) can lead to claim denials or policy cancellation.
      • Build long-term relationships with insurers. Loyalty discounts and personalized risk assessments may improve score treatment over time.

      Monitoring Insurance Score Changes Over Time

      Insurance scores are dynamic, influenced by real-time data such as claims, credit updates, and policy changes. Regular monitoring enables timely interventions to correct negative trends. Below are tools and best practices for tracking score fluctuations:

      Tools for Score Tracking
      Insurers and third-party platforms provide varying levels of score visibility, though transparency differs by provider.

      • Insurer Dashboards: Many companies (e.g., Allstate’s "My Drivewise," Geico’s "Usage-Based Insurance") offer online portals to view driving behavior, claims history, and score-related discounts.
      • Mobile Applications: Apps like LexisNexis Risk Solutions or Insurify aggregate insurance-specific scores (where available) and provide personalized recommendations.
      • Credit Monitoring Services: Platforms such as Credit Karma or Experian track credit-based insurance scores (e.g., CLUE for property, auto scores). These often update monthly.
      • Annual Policy Reviews: Schedule a yearly check-in with insurers to discuss score factors and explore adjustments (e.g., adding safety features, bundling policies).
      Frequency of Updates and Key Triggers
      Insurance scores are not static; they adjust based on specific events. Understanding update cycles helps in proactive management.
      • Credit-Based Scores: Typically update quarterly or annually, aligned with credit bureau reporting cycles. Major credit events (e.g., new loans, bankruptcies) may trigger immediate reviews.
      • Claims and Violations: Reported within 30–90 days of occurrence. At-fault accidents or traffic citations can appear on records within 1–3 months.
      • Policy Changes: Adding or removing coverage, changing deductibles, or installing safety devices may prompt a score recalculation within 1–2 billing cycles.
      • Address or Employment Changes: Some insurers reassess scores if residence or occupation changes, as these factors may correlate with risk.
      Interpreting Score Reports
      When reviewing score reports, focus on actionable insights rather than absolute numbers. Key sections to analyze include:
      • Risk Factors: Identify weighted components (e.g., claims history contributes 40%, credit 25%). Prioritize improvements in high-impact areas.
      • Discounts and Penalties: Note applied discounts (e.g., safe driver, bundling) and penalties (e.g., prior claims). Addressing penalties often yields faster score improvements.
      • Historical Trends: Compare scores over time to detect patterns (e.g., seasonal spikes in premiums due to weather-related claims).
      Blockquote: Best Practice for Monitoring
      > "Insurance scores are not set in stone; they evolve with behavior. Set calendar reminders to review scores quarterly or after major life events (e.g., marriage, moving, purchasing a vehicle). Small, consistent improvements compound over time."

      Timeline for Score Recovery After a Negative Event

      Negative events—such as at-fault accidents, claims, or credit defaults—can temporarily depress an insurance score. Recovery timelines vary by event type, insurer policies, and state regulations. Below is a flowchart-style outline of typical recovery periods, along with strategies to accelerate improvement.
      

      Negative Event → Impact Duration → Recovery Actions → Estimated Recovery Time

      1. At-Fault Auto Accident
      

   5. Impact Duration: 3–6 years (varies by state; some states allow 5-year look-back periods).
   6. Recovery Actions:
   7. Complete defensive driving courses (may reduce points or penalties).
   8. Maintain a clean driving record post-accident to offset negative weight.
   9. Request insurer forgiveness programs (e.g., Allstate’s "Accident Forgiveness" for claims-free drivers).
   10. Estimated Recovery: 3–5 years with no additional violations.

   2. Non-Fault Claim (e.g., Theft, Weather Damage)
   

   11. Impact Duration: 3–5 years (claims may stay on records but lose weight over time).
   12. Recovery Actions:
   13. Avoid filing additional claims during recovery.
   14. Bundle policies or add safety devices to improve perceived risk.
   15. Shop for new insurers after 3 years if premiums remain high.
   16. Estimated Recovery: 2–4 years with no new claims.

   3. Credit Default or Bankruptcy
   

   17. *Impact Duration

   Regulatory and Ethical Considerations in Online Insurance Scoring

   Online insurance scoring systems operate within a complex landscape of regulatory obligations and ethical imperatives, balancing innovation with fairness, transparency, and compliance. These systems leverage vast datasets—including credit history, behavioral patterns, and alternative data—to assess risk, yet their deployment must align with legal frameworks governing data privacy, discrimination, and consumer protection. Regulatory bodies worldwide impose stringent requirements on data collection, algorithmic transparency, and score justification, while ethical concerns persist regarding systemic biases that may disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Insurers must navigate these constraints through proactive compliance, algorithmic audits, and clear communication with regulators to ensure scoring models remain both legally defensible and socially equitable.
   

   Legal Frameworks Governing Data Collection and Score Transparency

   Regulatory oversight of insurance scoring varies by jurisdiction, with laws often addressing data sourcing, model transparency, and consumer rights. Key frameworks include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the U.S., and sector-specific rules like the UK’s Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS). These regulations mandate explicit consent for data collection, restrictions on sensitive attributes (e.g., race, religion), and obligations to disclose scoring methodologies where they influence underwriting decisions.

   Global Comparison of Insurance Scoring Regulations
   

   Region	Key Requirement	Enforcement Body	Penalty for Non-Compliance
   European Union (GDPR)	Explicit consent for data processing, including insurance scoring. Right to explanation for automated decisions (Article 13-14). Prohibition on profiling based on sensitive data (e.g., health, ethnicity). Data minimization and storage limitation (Article 5).	European Data Protection Board (EDPB)	Fines up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million (whichever is higher).
   United States (State-Specific)	California: CCPA mandates opt-out rights for sale/sharing of personal data (including scoring inputs). New York (DFS Cybersecurity Regulation): Requires risk-based scoring transparency for financial institutions. Hawaii: Bans use of credit scores in personal lines insurance unless actuarially justified. Federal: Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) governs credit-based scoring, requiring adverse action notices.	State Attorneys General / Federal Trade Commission (FTC)	Fines up to $5,000 per violation (CCPA) or class-action lawsuits under FCRA.
   United Kingdom (ICOBS)	Insurers must ensure scoring models are "fair, clear, and not misleading." Prohibition on discriminatory pricing unless justified by risk (Equality Act 2010). Requirement to disclose scoring factors upon consumer request.	Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)	Fines up to £18 million or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is higher).
   Canada (PIPEDA)	Consent for data collection, with opt-out rights for non-essential scoring. Algorithmic transparency requirements for high-impact decisions. Prohibition on scoring based on protected grounds (e.g., disability, family status).	Privacy Commissioner of Canada	Fines up to CAD 10 million or 2% of global revenue (whichever is higher).
   Australia (Privacy Act 1988)	Australian Privacy Principles (APP) require fairness in scoring and consumer access to data. Insurers must notify consumers of scoring impacts on premiums. Restrictions on scoring based on health information without explicit consent.	Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)	Fines up to AUD 2.22 million or 10% of annual turnover.

   Key Considerations for Compliance
   Regulatory expectations evolve alongside technological advancements. For instance, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (2024) classifies high-risk AI systems—including insurance scoring tools—as requiring conformity assessments and human oversight. Insurers must also adhere to NAIC Model Laws in the U.S., which encourage state-level consistency in scoring disclosures. Failure to comply risks reputational damage, regulatory sanctions, and consumer litigation, as seen in cases where insurers used unvalidated predictive models leading to discriminatory outcomes.
   

   Systemic Biases in Insurance Scoring and Mitigation Strategies

   Insurance scoring systems are susceptible to algorithmic bias, where historical data or proxy variables inadvertently perpetuate disparities. Common sources of bias include:
   
   18. Demographic Disparities: Urban dwellers may receive higher scores due to denser data availability (e.g., credit card usage, telematics), while rural populations lack comparable data points, leading to lower scores and higher premiums.
   19. Socioeconomic Correlations: Credit scores, often used as proxies for risk, correlate with income levels, disproportionately penalizing low-income applicants.
   20. Data Gaps: Minority groups may be underrepresented in training datasets, causing models to default to broader (and less accurate) risk assessments.

   Examples of Bias in Practice
   

   21. A 2022 study by the Consumer Federation of America found that insurers using telematics data (e.g., driving behavior) assigned lower scores to drivers in lower-income neighborhoods, despite similar risk profiles.
   22. In health insurance, predictive models trained on predominantly urban data underestimated rural claim costs, leading to denied coverage for high-risk rural applicants.

   Remedial Approaches
   Insurers and regulators employ several strategies to mitigate bias:
   

   23. Algorithm Audits: Independent third-party reviews of scoring models for fairness, using tools like IBM’s AI Fairness 360 or Google’s What-If Tool.
   24. Re-Calibration: Adjusting model weights to reduce reliance on biased inputs (e.g., capping credit score influence at 30% of total score).
   25. Synthetic Data Augmentation: Generating balanced datasets for underrepresented groups to improve model generalization.
   26. Regulatory Sandboxes: Collaborating with authorities (e.g., UK’s FCA Innovation Hub) to test bias-mitigated models in controlled environments.
   27. Transparency Reports: Publishing annual disclosures on scoring factors, bias assessments, and demographic impacts, as required under GDPR’s Article 22 or California’s AB 25.

   Case Study: Equitable Scoring in Auto Insurance
   Progressive Insurance’s Snapshot program initially faced criticism for assigning lower scores to drivers in high-crime areas, regardless of individual behavior. After a 2021 FTC settlement, Progressive implemented:
   

   28. Neighborhood-Level Adjustments: Scores now account for local crash rates rather than broad crime statistics.
   29. Consumer Opt-Out: Drivers can exclude location-based data from scoring.
   30. Public Disclosure: Annual reports detailing score distribution by demographic and geographic regions.

   Justifying Score-Based Pricing to Regulators: Filings and Public Disclosures

   Regulators scrutinize insurance scoring through rate filings, market conduct exams, and public disclosures to ensure pricing reflects actuarial soundness and non-discrimination. Insurers justify score-based pricing using three primary approaches:

   1. Actuarial Validation
   Insurers submit statistical evidence demonstrating a direct correlation between scoring factors and claim outcomes. For example:
   

   31. Geico’s Telematics Program: Filed with state regulators showing a 20% reduction in claims for drivers with high engagement scores, justifying premium discounts.
   32. Allstate’s "Drivewise": Submitted data to the NAIC proving score-based discounts reduced overall accident severity by 15% in test markets.

   "The scoring model must demonstrate a

   Insurance score online represents a pivotal intersection of technology, consumer behavior, and regulatory oversight, reshaping the landscape of risk management. By leveraging real-time data and adaptive algorithms, insurers and policyholders alike stand to benefit from fairer pricing and personalized risk mitigation strategies. However, the path forward demands vigilance against systemic biases and transparency in scoring methodologies to ensure fairness across demographics. As digital tools continue to evolve, mastering these scores will not only optimize policy costs but also foster a more accountable and consumer-centric insurance ecosystem.

   • digital underwriting
   • insurance scoring
   • premium optimization
   • regulatory compliance
   • risk assessment

   Leave a Comment

   Name

   Comment

   Post Comment

   Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of viralcontentbee.com.