Published
August 23, 2026
Updated
October 25, 2026
This case goes after the camera company rather than the stores: a proposed class action alleges Flock Safety's license plate reader network let federal and out-of-state agencies search where California drivers had been. If you drive in California, the suit says your plate may be in that data — but nothing is claimable, and the allegations are unproven.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Flock Group Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is the Flock License Plate Class Action About?
On February 26, 2026, two California residents filed a proposed class action against Flock Group Inc. — the automated license plate recognition company that operates under the name Flock Safety — in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-26-634334. The case is captioned Javorsky v. Flock Group Inc. Flock was served on March 13, 2026 and removed the case to federal court five days later, where it is docketed as Case No. 4:26-cv-02382 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.The complaint's theory is narrower and more specific than most of the license plate suits filed in California this year. It is not primarily about whether a business posted an adequate privacy policy. It alleges that plate scans collected in California by the Flock system were pooled into a network that federal law enforcement agencies and agencies from other states could reach into and search — and that this happened to drivers who had no idea their vehicle's movements were being logged at all.
Flock denies wrongdoing. In its removal papers, the company disputed both that it is liable for any of the claims and that the proposed classes could ever be certified. No court has ruled on the merits, and everything described on this page comes from the complaint and the public docket.
Status
Motion to Dismiss Argued · Ruling Pending
consolidated May 29, 2026 · Flock’s motion argued Sept. 24, 2026 · judge tentatively questioned standing and raised a possible remand to state court
Court
N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC
lead case In re: Flock Group Inc. Automated License Plate Reader Litigation, before Judge Vince Chhabria; Javorsky (No. 4:26-cv-02382, removed from San Francisco Superior Court) consolidated into it
What's Alleged
California Plate Scans Made Searchable by Federal and Out-of-State Agencies
five counts, including California's ALPR Privacy Act, negligence, and unfair competition
Claim Form?
No — Nothing to File Yet
no class certified; statutory damages sought of not less than $2,500 per violation
What the Lawsuit Claims Flock Did Wrong
California's ALPR Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.) governs how license plate scan data may be collected, kept, and shared, and gives individuals a private right of action carrying statutory damages. Our ALPR and license plate reader privacy explainer walks through what the statute requires.The complaint alleges that Flock's cameras captured plate numbers, vehicle characteristics, and time-stamped location records from drivers throughout California, and that this data did not stay with whichever agency or business installed the camera. According to the complaint, it was aggregated into a network reachable by federal law enforcement agencies and by agencies outside California — a disclosure the complaint alleges California law does not permit and that the drivers themselves never agreed to.
The distinction the complaint draws between its two proposed classes tracks a real legal question: whether the harm is the mere availability of the data to agencies that should not have it, or only an actual search. The complaint pleads both, defining one class around data that was accessible to and thus disclosed to those agencies, and a second around data those agencies actually searched for. Which theory survives is a question for the court, and neither has been tested yet.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Who Is in the Proposed Classes?
The complaint proposes two California classes:• "All individuals whose license plate data was collected in California by the Flock ALPR system and was accessible by, and thus disclosed to, federal law enforcement agencies, out-of-state agencies."
• "All individuals whose license plate data was collected in California by the Flock ALPR system and was searched for by federal law enforcement agencies and/or out-of-state agencies."
On size, the complaint alleges that individual joinder is impracticable and that there are millions of drivers throughout California whose license plates were photographed, time-stamped, and geolocated by Flock. Flock quoted that allegation in its removal papers to establish that the class exceeds 100 members, while making clear it disputes that any such class could be certified. No class has been certified, and certification is contested.
What Laws Does the Lawsuit Invoke?
The complaint pleads five causes of action: (1) violation of California's ALPR Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.; (2) negligence; (3) invasion of privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; (4) intrusion upon seclusion; and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.On damages, the complaint seeks not less than $2,500 per violation under the ALPR Privacy Act, or actual damages if higher, along with punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. A jury trial was demanded. None of this is money that exists today — it is what the complaint asks a court to award if the plaintiffs eventually win.
Why the Case Moved to Federal Court
Flock removed the case on March 18, 2026 under the Class Action Fairness Act, which lets a defendant move a class action into federal court when the proposed class has at least 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.Flock's notice argued all three were satisfied. Flock is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, while the plaintiffs are California citizens, so the parties are diverse. The complaint's own allegation of millions of affected drivers clears the 100-member floor. And multiplying even a fraction of that number by the $2,500 statutory minimum — before any punitive damages or fee award — passes $5 million. Removal under CAFA is routine in consumer class actions and says nothing about whether the underlying claims are sound. Flock is represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.
Where the Case Stands Now
The docket has moved a fair amount without reaching the merits. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge on March 19, 2026, reassigned to a district judge on March 23 after the parties did not all consent to magistrate jurisdiction, and reassigned again on May 8 when the court entered an order relating it to another Flock case pending in the same district, No. 3:26-cv-02375. Both matters now sit before Judge Vince Chhabria.On April 3, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, which expanded the case from two named plaintiffs to ten. On May 27, 2026, the court set a briefing schedule for applications to be appointed interim class counsel under Rule 23(g) — the step where competing plaintiffs' firms ask to lead a consolidated case. Two days later, on May 29, 2026, the court granted a stipulation consolidating the related cases, and this docket was administratively closed.
Important: that closure is not a dismissal. When cases are consolidated, the merged matter proceeds under the lead case number and the member docket stops receiving filings. Nothing about it reflects a ruling for or against either side. The consolidated matter now proceeds as In re: Flock Group Inc. Automated License Plate Reader Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-02375-VC.
Lead Counsel, the Consolidated Complaint and Flock’s Motion to Dismiss
At a June 25, 2026 hearing, Judge Chhabria granted the motion to consolidate and appoint interim class counsel filed by the plaintiffs in the related case, rather than the competing application from the Javorsky plaintiffs. Those lawyers filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on July 9, 2026 with four named plaintiffs. Several of the original Javorsky plaintiffs later filed notices voluntarily dismissing their own claims in July and September 2026.Flock moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 30, 2026. Its motion leans on Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc., a July 20, 2026 California Court of Appeal decision, which Flock reads to mean that a person can sue under the ALPR statute only if his or her own data was improperly obtained, used or released. Flock argues the plaintiffs allege no such harm, that the provision behind their improper-sharing claim applies only to public agencies, and that photographing a vehicle on a public road is not a privacy invasion under the California Constitution. The plaintiffs opposed the motion on August 27, 2026, and the court entered a stipulated order on August 25, 2026 governing preservation of ALPR data during the case.
On September 23, 2026, the day before the hearing, Judge Chhabria issued an order saying he was tentatively of the view that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, the standing required to sue in federal court, for Claims 1 through 4, a view he called most tentative for Claim 2. Flock argues the plaintiffs also lack Article III standing for Claim 5. The judge asked both sides to brief whether the case should be sent back to state court if he agrees. A federal court that lacks jurisdiction over a removed case generally returns it to state court rather than deciding the merits, so a remand would not by itself end the case. The motion was argued on September 24, 2026, and the court said it would issue a written ruling. As of October 25, 2026, the docket shows no ruling.
Separate Colorado case: On October 5, 2026, a Denver driver filed a different proposed class action against Flock in federal court in Colorado, Elser v. Flock Group, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-04977. It is not part of this California case and relies on Colorado law; details are on OCA’s Flock Safety Colorado lawsuit page.
How This Differs From the Lowe's and Home Depot Cases
California saw a wave of license plate suits in 2026, and most of them look different from this one. The retailer cases — including the Lowe's license plate surveillance class action and the Home Depot license plate surveillance class action — sue the business that installed the cameras, and turn largely on whether that business posted an ALPR usage and privacy policy containing every element the statute requires.This case skips the storefront and sues the vendor, and it is built on what allegedly happened to the data downstream rather than on a policy document. That raises a question none of the retailer suits squarely present: when plate data collected in California ends up searchable by agencies the statute did not contemplate, who bears the statutory duty — the customer that pointed the camera at the parking lot, or the company that runs the network the scans flow into? Our rundown of the California ALPR lawsuit wave covers the appellate decision that set much of this litigation in motion.
What This Means for California Drivers
If you drive in California, the complaint's allegations would sweep in a very large number of people — but that breadth does not translate into anything actionable today.• There is no claim form and no settlement. Any recovery, if there is one, is years out and depends on the case surviving motions and winning certification.
• You do not need to do anything to preserve your place. Absent class members are covered by a certified class automatically; there is no registration step at the complaint stage.
• Be skeptical of anyone offering a Flock payout. High-profile filings attract fake settlement sites. There is no Flock settlement to claim right now.
• Watch the consolidated case, not this docket. Because the matters were consolidated, future rulings will land under the lead case number.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Flock Safety settlement to claim?
No. This is a pending complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, no claim form, and no money available. Flock denies wrongdoing and no class has been certified.
How is this different from the Lowe's and Home Depot license plate cases?
Those cases sue the retailers that installed the cameras and focus on whether their posted ALPR privacy policies meet California's requirements. This one sues the camera vendor and focuses on what allegedly happened to the data afterward — that California plate scans became accessible to and searchable by federal and out-of-state agencies.
What does the complaint say Flock did?
That its ALPR cameras captured California drivers' plate numbers, vehicle characteristics and time-stamped locations, and that the data was pooled into a network federal and out-of-state agencies could reach and search. Five counts are pleaded, including the ALPR Privacy Act, negligence, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion and unfair competition. The allegations are unproven.
Who would be covered by the proposed classes?
Two California classes: people whose plate data was accessible to, and thus disclosed to, federal or out-of-state agencies, and people whose plate data those agencies actually searched for. Neither class has been certified.
How much money does the lawsuit seek?
Not less than $2,500 per violation under the ALPR Privacy Act, or actual damages if higher, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Those are requested damages, not an available payout.
The docket says the case was terminated. Was it thrown out?
No. It was administratively closed on May 29, 2026 when the court consolidated it with a related case before the same judge. The matter continues under the lead case number. That is not a dismissal and not a ruling either way.
Sources
• Javorsky v. Flock Group Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-02382, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Notice of Removal filed March 18, 2026; First Amended Class Action Complaint filed April 3, 2026; order consolidating cases entered May 29, 2026) — docket via CourtListener• Defendant's Notice of Removal of Putative Class Action, Dkt. 1 (March 18, 2026) — document via CourtListener
• Originating state action: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-26-634334 (complaint filed February 26, 2026)
• Lead case: In re: Flock Group Inc. Automated License Plate Reader Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-02375-VC, docket via CourtListener (consolidated amended complaint, Dkt. 52, July 9, 2026; minute entry on the September 24, 2026 hearing, Dkt. 69; order of September 23, 2026, Dkt. 66)
• Flock Group Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint, Dkt. 54 (July 30, 2026)
• California ALPR Privacy Act: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.
• Defendant's Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
• Related OCA coverage: the California ALPR lawsuit wave and the $2,500 privacy rule
About This Page
This page summarizes the publicly filed complaint, Notice of Removal, and docket in Javorsky v. Flock Group Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-02382 (N.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm, claims administrator, or party to this case. The allegations described here have not been proven in court, and Flock Group Inc. has not admitted any wrongdoing. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Motion to Dismiss Argued, Ruling Pending — No Settlement
Case Title
In re: Flock Group Inc. Automated License Plate Reader Litigation
consolidating Javorsky v. Flock Group Inc.
Case Number
3:26-cv-02375-VC (lead)
Javorsky: No. 4:26-cv-02382, originally CGC-26-634334, San Francisco County Superior Court
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Judge
Hon. Vince Chhabria
Date Filed
February 26, 2026
removed March 18, 2026 · consolidated May 29, 2026 · consolidated complaint July 9, 2026 · motion to dismiss argued Sept. 24, 2026
Defendant
Flock Group Inc. (Flock Safety)
Defendant's Counsel
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Claims Pleaded
California ALPR Privacy Act · negligence · invasion of privacy · intrusion upon seclusion · unfair competition
Damages Sought
Not less than $2,500 per violation under the ALPR Privacy Act, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees
Official Website
Court Docket via CourtListener
