Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) network, now deployed across thousands of U.S. cities, has become one of the most contested surveillance technologies in the country. Critics argue the cameras enable practices that violate the Fourth Amendment. Vandalizing these cameras has become increasingly widespread, and has become somewhat of a meme.
Flock is the dominant player in the ALPR market, with its cameras deployed in more than 5,000 cities and towns across the U.S., according to an advocacy group.
The result of the widespread controversy is a potential groundswell of litigation. To date, Flock Safety (legally called Flock Group) has been sued 23 times in federal court.
This figure does not reflect the true scope of the controversy, though – many lawsuits are targeting cities for their use of the cameras without targeting the company directly. Institute for Justice brought suit against the City of Norfolk over their use of ALPR cameras; the court granted summary judgment in favor of the City earlier this year.
Most of the federal cases against Flock directly were filed just in 2026, including five in March alone. A consolidated litigation has already been opened in the Northern District of California, and has accumulated 59 docket entries in five months.
The putative class action that originated that consolidated litigation alleges that Flock violates a California data sharing law specifically targeted at ALPRs.
In these cases, Arnold & Porter represents Flock. Edelson PC and Bursor & Fisher represent named plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation but other plaintiff’s firms may be involved as well.
The speed with which these cases are growing – and, notably, the speed with which a consolidated litigation was set up in California – could indicate a big problem for Flock, and a big opportunity for plaintiff’s firms.
