Update: Hancock advises us that the original Reuters story was incorrect – this has since been corrected. It is mandatory to join the Vitality program, but sharing of fitness data is optional.

Anyone with a life insurance policy from John Hancock – one of the largest insurers in the US – is now required to join the Vitality program, geared to encouraging a healthy lifestyle.

Those who choose to share fitness data from a device like an Apple Watch of Fitbit can earn rewards for doing so …

The firm announced the change today for new policies, with existing policies also adopting the requirement from next year.

Vitality PLUS: For $2.00 a month 5, customers will receive all the benefits of the John Hancock Vitality Program, including savings of up to 15 percent on annual premiums and valuable rewards for the everyday things they do to stay healthy, like exercising, eating well and getting regular checkups. Consumers can earn an Apple Watch for as little as $25 plus tax or receive a complimentary Fitbit device to make it easy to record their healthy activities. Today, we also announce additions to the program:

Reuters reports that the company made the decision three years after first introducing the so-called ‘interactive’ policies optional.

Those sharing fitness data can earn rewards, such as gift cards for retail stores.

Interactive life insurance, pioneered by John Hancock’s partner the Vitality Group, is already well-established in South Africa and Britain and is becoming more widespread in the United States […]

The insurer will begin converting existing life insurance policies to Vitality in 2019.

As Reuters notes, the move could have disturbing implications.

The insurance industry says that the law means it can only hike premiums if it can show an increased risk, but it does raise the question of how far this type of approach could go. Will policyholders be penalised for walking through a sketchy area, logged by the GPS in their device? What about an activity tracker logging a strenuous hike as a risk factor? Or deciding that someone is cycling or skiing dangerously fast? This could be the beginning of an incredibly slippery slope.

What’s your view? Does it make sense to align policies to risk factors? Or is this all too big brother-ish? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Photo: TechRadar