California's Privacy Showdown: Lawsuit Targets Flock's Surveillance Tech

OAKLAND, CA – February 27, 2026 – A sweeping class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court is taking aim at Flock Safety, a technology firm whose automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras have become a ubiquitous feature of the Californian landscape. Filed on February 26 by the Oakland-based law firm Gibbs Mura and Milberg PLLC, the lawsuit alleges that Flock’s powerful surveillance network illegally shares the daily movements of millions of Californians with law enforcement agencies across the country, in direct violation of the state's landmark privacy laws.

The legal challenge argues that Flock Safety has created a massive, privately-run surveillance infrastructure that operates beyond the bounds of California law. It accuses the company of violating California’s ALPR Privacy Act, the state’s Unfair Competition Law, and the fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the California Constitution.

“Flock’s mass surveillance system threatens Californians’ privacy rights,” stated lead attorney David Berger in a press release. “License plate readers collect and store vast amounts of information about innocent people, and public safety cannot be a catch-all justification for overreach. We have filed this class action lawsuit to hold Flock accountable for unlawfully sharing license plate data across state lines in direct violation of California law.”

A Statewide Dragnet? How Flock's ALPRs Operate

Flock Safety’s technology is used by over 200 municipal police and sheriff's departments across California, from San Francisco and Oakland to Sacramento and San Diego County. The company’s discreet, solar-powered cameras are mounted on utility poles and streetlights, where they capture an image of every vehicle that passes.

Using artificial intelligence, the system logs the license plate number, the time, the date, and the location, along with details about the vehicle itself, such as its color and make. This information is compiled into a vast, searchable database. Law enforcement agencies can use this database to track a vehicle's movements over time, creating a detailed record of a person's life—their commute to work, trips to the doctor, visits to friends, or attendance at a political protest.

The lawsuit describes this capability as a “dragnet surveillance system,” a stark contrast to traditional investigative methods that target specific suspects based on evidence. While Flock Safety states on its website that data is deleted after 30 days, privacy advocates and the lawsuit itself raise concerns about what happens to that data once it is shared. Critics argue that once data is transferred to law enforcement databases, it can be retained for years and shared with other agencies, effectively bypassing California's retention limits.

The Heart of the Legal Challenge: California's Privacy Fortress

The case hinges on California's robust legal framework designed to protect citizen privacy from expanding surveillance technologies. The cornerstone of the lawsuit is the state's ALPR Privacy Act, also known as Senate Bill 34, which was passed in 2015 specifically to regulate this type of data collection.

A key provision of SB 34, reinforced by guidance from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, explicitly prohibits California agencies from sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal law enforcement. The lawsuit alleges that Flock’s system facilitates exactly this prohibited activity, allowing data collected on California drivers to be accessed by police departments and federal authorities across the nation.

This isn't the first time this specific legal line has been tested. In 2021, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and ACLU successfully sued the Marin County Sheriff for violating SB 34 by sharing ALPR data with federal agencies, including ICE and CBP. That case, which ended in a favorable settlement, set a clear precedent that the current lawsuit against Flock aims to build upon.

Beyond SB 34, the plaintiffs are leveraging California's broad Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful or fraudulent business practices, and its constitutional right to privacy. Established in 1972, California's constitutional privacy right is one of the strongest in the nation, explicitly protecting citizens from privacy intrusions by both government and private companies.

The Broader Implications for Privacy and Public Safety

Law enforcement agencies often praise ALPR technology as an invaluable tool for recovering stolen vehicles, finding missing persons, and solving violent crimes. They argue that access to broad networks of data enhances their ability to respond quickly and effectively to criminal activity. However, civil liberties organizations have long warned of the potential for misuse.

Privacy advocates argue that creating a detailed, searchable log of every driver's movements has a chilling effect on freedom of association and expression. The knowledge that one's presence at a sensitive location—such as a medical clinic, a place of worship, or a political rally—is being recorded can deter people from exercising their fundamental rights. Furthermore, there are concerns that such systems can be used to disproportionately target certain communities.

The lawsuit against Flock Safety brings this long-simmering debate to a head. It questions whether the perceived public safety benefits of a vast, interconnected surveillance network outweigh the cost to individual liberty and the specific privacy protections guaranteed by California law.

A New Front in the War on Big Tech

The legal action against Flock also represents the latest example of class action lawsuits being used as a powerful tool to hold technology companies accountable. The firms behind the suit, Gibbs Mura and Milberg PLLC, are veterans of this legal battleground. Gibbs Mura has a formidable track record, having secured a $1.5 billion settlement in the historic Equifax Data Breach Lawsuit and a $27.5 million settlement against Thomson Reuters in 2025 for alleged privacy violations on its CLEAR platform.

By bringing a class action, the law firms are enabling potentially millions of California drivers to collectively challenge the practices of a major tech company. The lawsuit invites any driver whose movements may have been tracked by Flock cameras in cities like Berkeley, Fremont, Mountain View, and Los Gatos, among others, to join the case.

The outcome could have significant repercussions not only for Flock Safety but for the more than 200 California municipalities that rely on its technology. These cities could face their own legal risks and may be forced to radically overhaul their surveillance policies to ensure compliance with state law. The case serves as a critical test of California's resolve to enforce its privacy statutes in an era of ever-expanding data collection, forcing a public reckoning over the price of security in a free society.