ALPR Surveillance

Understanding the trend

What is this trend?

A wave of class actions and pre-suit investigations targets the automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera networks sold by Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions (Vigilant) and the properties that install them — big-box retailers, shopping malls, hotels, medical centers, homeowners associations, airports, and stadiums. Plaintiffs allege these cameras silently scan, log, and share every vehicle's license plate, location, and movement history with police and third parties without the notice or consent California privacy law requires.

What caused it

Flock's rapid commercial expansion beyond police departments into private property — Home Depot, Lowe's, malls, HOAs — collided with California's ALPR-specific statute (Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq., enacted via SB 34) and broader privacy/CIPA theories. After the first complaints against Flock and Home Depot in early-to-mid 2026, plaintiff firms (Siri & Glimstad, Console & Associates, Ahdoot & Wolfson, Edelson, Bursor & Fisher, Gibbs) launched a coordinated investigation campaign mapping every California property running Flock or Motorola cameras.

Practices driving the lawsuits

• Installing Flock/Motorola ALPR cameras at store entrances and parking lots that scan and store every plate without on-site notice or opt-out.
• Aggregating billions of vehicle scans into searchable databases and sharing them with law enforcement and out-of-state/federal agencies.
• Operating networked cameras in violation of California's ALPR Privacy Act (Civil Code §1798.90 / SB 34) usage and disclosure limits.
• Capturing driver location and movement data at malls, hotels, HOAs, and medical centers without consent (CIPA / common-law privacy / UCL).
• Cross-jurisdiction data sharing that plaintiffs frame as warrantless mass surveillance under constitutional and statutory theories.