License Plate Reader Lawsuits

License plate readers, commonly known as automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems, have become one of the most widespread surveillance tools in California. Also referred to as license plate cameras or license plate trackers, these systems are routinely mounted on parking garages, retail lots, shopping centers, tow trucks, and private security vehicles. They rely on automated cameras to scan and record thousands of license plates each day, often without drivers realizing the technology is present.

Years ago, California lawmakers anticipated the privacy risks inherent in this form of data tracking and in 2016 the state's Automated License Plate Recognition statute took effect. For nearly a decade, however, the law remained largely untested in the courts. That changed in 2026 when a series of appellate rulings and new class action filings began testing the limits of consumer data protection.

If an ALPR system or license plate reader has scanned, stored or shared your license plate data at a business operating in California, you may have legal rights under this statute. Contact our privacy attorneys to discuss your case.

What Is California's ALPR and License Plate Reader Law?

California's ALPR statute regulates how private companies and public agencies collect, store, use, and share data captured by license plate readers. Any operator or end user of an ALPR system must:

• Implement reasonable security procedures to protect collected data;
• Create a written usage and privacy policy describing how ALPR data is collected, used, shared, retained, and destroyed; and
• Make that policy publicly available, typically by posting it on the company's website.

These requirements are not limited to law enforcement or specialized parking technology vendors. Retailers, shopping malls, hotels, homeowners associations, parking operators, and property managers who use ALPR systems may all fall within the statute's reach if their systems convert license plate images into searchable, computer-readable data.

Consumers harmed by a violation of the ALPR statute may be entitled to recover actual damages, or liquidated damages of at least $2,500, together with attorney's fees, punitive damages where authorized, and injunctive relief.

Why ALPR and License Plate Tracking Matters for California Drivers

An ALPR system can reveal far more than most people realize. When license plate scans are combined with timestamps and location data, they can create a detailed record of a person's movements over time. This form of tracking can expose sensitive patterns, including visits to medical facilities, places of worship, political events, or other private destinations.

Many California drivers are unaware that an ALPR system is scanning their vehicle every time they enter a parking lot, shopping center, or parking garage. If the business operating that system failed to implement or publicly post a privacy policy that complies with California law, the driver may have statutory rights even if no traditional data breach occurred.

Recent California Court Rulings on ALPR and License Plate Tracker Liability

Two significant appellate decisions issued in 2026 have shaped how ALPR and license plate reader claims are evaluated in California courts. The rulings point in somewhat different directions.

Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc.

In February 2026, California's First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that a parking garage operator collected his license plate data through an ALPR camera without implementing or posting a compliant usage and privacy policy. The business argued that a plaintiff must demonstrate actual misuse of the data to establish harm.

The court rejected that argument, holding that the mere failure to post a required ALPR privacy policy can itself constitute actionable harm under the statute. The court reasoned that such an omission undermines the transparency and accountability the law was designed to protect, regardless of whether the collected information was ever misused.

The California Supreme Court declined to review the decision, leaving it as binding guidance for similar ALPR cases.

Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc.

In July 2026, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion in a case involving a company that operates vehicle-mounted ALPR readers. The company had implemented and posted a privacy policy. The plaintiff contended that the policy amounted to little more than lip service and that the collection and storage of his data constituted an invasion of privacy.

The court disagreed, holding that standing under the ALPR statute requires a showing of actual harm beyond a subjective belief that one's privacy was invaded. Because the plaintiff could not identify unauthorized access, misuse, or a security breach, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the company.

These two decisions indicate that the presence or absence of a compliant ALPR privacy policy is likely to be the central issue in most license plate reader cases going forward. Businesses with no policy at all appear to face the greatest exposure, while claims based solely on the fact that data was collected may encounter a higher bar in court.

A Growing Wave of ALPR and License Plate Reader Class Action Lawsuits

Since the Bartholomew decision, plaintiffs' firms have filed class-action complaints against a wide range of businesses that use ALPR and license plate reader technology in California. Reported cases and investigations have involved shopping centers, big-box retailers, grocery chains, hotels, parking operators, and the technology vendors that supply these systems.

Notable examples reported in recent months include:

• A proposed class action against Motorola Solutions alleging that its ALPR network collected, stored, and shared vehicle information, including images of occupants and precise GPS locations, without satisfying the statute's privacy policy and security requirements. The case was reportedly consolidated with related ALPR claims against Flock Safety in federal court.
• A class action against Home Depot alleging that license plate readers were installed at California store parking lots without the legally required disclosures and that the company allegedly failed to define ALPR data-retention practices or limit broad data sharing with law enforcement.
• Ongoing litigation and public-records disputes involving local police departments and ALPR vendors concerning data sharing with federal and out-of-state agencies, an issue the California Attorney General has also pursued through separate enforcement actions.

These matters remain allegations at this stage and no conclusions about liability should be drawn from the mere filing of a complaint. But what the cases demonstrate is a clear trend: California courts and regulators are scrutinizing how ALPR data is collected and handled, and consumers are increasingly stepping forward to enforce their statutory rights.

What to Do If You Believe Your ALPR Rights Were Violated

If you suspect a business used an ALPR system or license plate reader to collect your data without proper disclosure, consider taking the following steps:

• Note the location, date, and business where you believe your license plate was scanned.
• Check whether the business has a publicly posted ALPR usage and privacy policy on its website.
• Save any notices, signage, or documentation related to license plate reader use at the property.
• Consult a privacy attorney before concluding that you have no legal recourse.

‍

‍

Any companies or lawsuits mentioned reflect publicly reported allegations, and no company named in this article has been found liable for the conduct described unless otherwise stated. Nothing in this article should be construed as an accusation of wrongdoing.