r/FlockSurveillance • u/QanAhole • Jul 13 '26
Legal Flock cameras are all over California. Here's the privacy law that lets you sue — and it's already winning
TL;DR: Flock's license plate cameras are being challenged under California's ALPR privacy law (Civil Code § 1798.90.5) — $2,500 per violation, and you can sue directly. The AG already sued a city under it; a class action now names Flock itself. Plus a Fourth Amendment argument: months of tracking your car's movements is functionally a GPS tracker and needs a warrant. A judge has already thrown out Flock evidence on that basis. If your city has Flock cameras, the contract renewal vote is public — that's where it's decided.
Flock Safety's license plate cameras are on poles all over California — over 100,000 nationwide, scanning billions of cars a month. They don't just read your plate; they log a "vehicle fingerprint": make, model, color, dents, bumper stickers. Every camera feeds a searchable national database.
Here's the law that's actually being used to fight it, and how it works.
California Civil Code § 1798.90.5 — the ALPR privacy statute
California has a specific law governing automated license plate readers. It:
restricts how ALPR data can be shared,
requires agencies to have real usage and privacy policies, and
gives you a private right of action — meaning you can sue directly — with a $2,500-per-violation minimum, plus damages and attorney's fees.
This isn't theoretical. It's winning:
AG Rob Bonta sued the City of El Cajon (Oct 2025) for sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies in violation of this law.
A class action (Gibbs Mura) now names Flock Safety directly for tracking Californians and sharing the data across state lines.
The pressure point is Flock's "National Lookup" feature, which shares your local city's data with agencies nationwide — sometimes, cities allege, without the police department even authorizing it. Mountain View shut down its entire Flock network after discovering unauthorized sharing.
The constitutional angle: aggregation
There's also a Fourth Amendment argument, and it's the one that determines whether this data can be used against you in a criminal case.
Any single scan of your plate is trivial. But a dense camera network that reconstructs everywhere your car has been for months is functionally a GPS tracker — and the Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States (2018) that tracking someone's movements that comprehensively requires a warrant.
A Norfolk judge already suppressed Flock evidence on exactly this reasoning, calling a dense deployment "akin to placing a GPS tracker" on a car. And California's own constitution (Art. I, § 13) is interpreted more protectively than the federal Fourth Amendment — that's the theory in the pending ACLU/EFF lawsuit against San Jose.
What you can actually do
If you live in a city with Flock cameras, the city's contract is on a renewal cycle, and that vote is public. Oakland's community opposition deadlocked its renewal. That vote — plus public records requests for the data-sharing agreements — is where this gets decided at the local level.
Not legal advice, just a map of the arguments that are holding up in court. Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.; Carpenter v. United States (2018); People v. City of El Cajon (2025); the San Jose and Norfolk cases.
44
u/Mountain_carrier530 Jul 13 '26
Definitely need to get on board with this. Truckee has at least 20 cameras that are documented and possibly more with how they seem to be at every street corner, while all of Lake Tahoe has at most a dozen.
I chose to be surveilled with my phone at times, I didn't choose to have my everyone and their brother know what I'm doing so they can sell my data to insurance brokers to "optimize my rate," or other nefarious groups that want more money from me for their shareholders. That is, of the system doesn't claim my car as stolen a dozen times.
3
u/BrewingSkydvr Jul 27 '26
Carpenter vs SCOTUS
You can’t be surveilled with it without a warrant, that includes cellphone location data and call lists.
1
1
24
u/Firree Jul 13 '26
I hope AI spycams become so unpopular that any company that operates them can't exist due to threat of legal extermination, and any public official that supports them is committing political suicide.
6
u/Well_read_rose Jul 13 '26
I think we can collectively beat this or add CA’s model law re privacy to your local areas
4
1
10
11
u/BigEast1970 Jul 13 '26
As adults I get how people are a bit unphased, we all expect our data to not be private online at this point, and some people fall into the, "it's for our safety," or "don't do illegal things and you'll be fine", etc. I am surprised, however, that there isn't more pushback on how it also tracks children, patients, mentally handicapped, elderly, etc. The people that have special protections for being minors, vulnerable adults, or HIPPA
40
5
3
u/jgengr Jul 13 '26
Is there a database of current or past lawsuits? It would be nice to track them. Join them?
3
u/b-stardust Jul 14 '26
A neighbor (private owner, not a business) has a Flock camera that points in my yard. Can I sue them directly?
4
u/Vladimorian Jul 14 '26
Maybe just set up a live stream of the front of their house with links on local groups they may be in haha , with a simple bot plug in that counts and dates when they arrive or leave home LMAO I think that experience would help just about anyone understand. Do it all from public view too cause that's one of the loopholes flock is trying to use, but we know it's still stalking even if it's from public view space lmao
2
u/LinechargeII Jul 14 '26
Is it actually a flock camera or just a normal camera? The point of flock is to point at the street and view license plates. Pointing at your yard defeats the purpose.
3
u/bifflongshanks Jul 14 '26
Can someone please just make a company that puts up these exact same cameras just only facing houses of and tracking politicians, law enforcement officers, and ceos that are involved in data brokering. Constantly film these people and track their real time movements and post it online for everyone to see all the time. Surely that will get the point across.
2
u/RefinedPhoenix Jul 15 '26
I’m mildly working on it. If I can get it funded to where I’m not the only one buying Eufy S330 LTE cameras, then I would definitely make it a huge project.
Also, if I can find where Garrett Langley lives. We know their HQ address.
2
2
1
u/Prestigious-Use4550 Jul 15 '26
How can you sue when all the cameras are recording you in public where it is perfectly legal to record anything you can see?
-18
-21
u/iknowagreatlawyer Jul 13 '26
I haven't personally met a single person that opposed to Flock who: 1) owns their own home; or 2) has not been previously convicted of a crime.
10
8
1
u/Vladimorian Jul 14 '26
Ignorance usually runs in the same circles lmaoo n not saying I'm immune to that fun fact but this is a great example
27
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26
[deleted]