Published
October 20, 2026
Drivers whose license plates were recorded by Motive Technologies’ AI dashcams may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Motive ran a license plate reader system without the usage and privacy policy California law requires. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet; Motive has moved to dismiss, with a hearing set for December 10, 2026.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a proposed class action complaint. The statements below about Motive’s products and practices are unproven allegations. Motive has not been found liable, it has moved to dismiss the case, 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 This About?
Two former commercial drivers, one from California and one from Ohio, filed the proposed class action against Motive Technologies, Inc. on July 24, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is Dean v. Motive Technologies, Inc. It was filed as No. 3:26-cv-07675 and, after a random reassignment on August 25, 2026, is now before U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in Oakland as No. 4:26-cv-07675-AMO. The original complaint is still the operative pleading.Motive, which is based in San Francisco, sells AI-powered fleet management, driver safety and logistics software to trucking, transportation, construction and field-service businesses. Its core product is a dashboard camera for commercial vehicles, with one lens facing the driver and one facing the road. On October 19, 2026, Motive asked the court to dismiss the entire complaint, and the motion is set to be heard on December 10, 2026.
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.
Status
Motion to Dismiss Pending
Hearing Dec. 10, 2026 · N.D. Cal.
Proposed Class
People Recorded by Motive Cameras
nationwide class · California and driver subclasses
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
no class certified · no settlement
What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The complaint alleges that Motive’s AI dashcams, working with its cloud-based fleet platform, function as an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system. According to the complaint, the road-facing camera photographs license plates that come into view and sends the images to Motive’s cloud, where software converts them into plate numbers and logs each vehicle’s make, model, body type, state of registration, the date and time, the camera’s location and other sightings of the same vehicle. The plaintiffs allege that pooling those records across Motive’s network builds a running record of where vehicles travel, and that people who simply share the road with a Motive-equipped truck have no way to know about it or opt out. The complaint cites Motive’s statements that its cameras serve nearly 100,000 customers and 1.3 million drivers, and that its AI Dashcam Plus can capture plates up to 40 feet away.Each plaintiff says a Motive camera was installed in the company vehicle they drove for work, and that their personal car and license plate were recorded each time they arrived at work. The complaint also alleges that the driver-facing camera uses drivers’ face geometry for distraction alerts, watches for signs of fatigue and powers a “Face Match” feature that links drivers to vehicles, and that data from the platform can flow to more than 250 third-party software integrations, some of which allegedly use it for marketing. None of these allegations has been proven.
What California’s License Plate Reader Law Requires
California’s ALPR law, Civil Code § 1798.90.5 and following, was enacted in 2015 and covers private businesses as well as public agencies that operate or use an ALPR system. Operators and end users must keep ALPR data reasonably secure and adopt a usage and privacy policy that covers, among other things, who may access the data, how it may be shared or sold, how its accuracy is checked and how long it is kept. A business with a website must post that policy conspicuously there. The complaint alleges that Motive never adopted or posted a compliant ALPR policy.Under Civil Code § 1798.90.54, an individual “harmed by a violation” may sue a person who “knowingly caused the harm.” A court may award actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $2,500; punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; attorney’s fees and litigation costs; and other equitable relief. The complaint seeks those remedies for the California subclass.
What Claims Does the Complaint Make?
The complaint brings four counts: common-law invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) on behalf of a proposed nationwide class; invasion of privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; violation of the California ALPR law; and violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) provision that bars using an electronic tracking device to determine a person’s location or movement, Penal Code § 637.7. The last three counts are brought for the California subclass only. On the CIPA count, the complaint seeks the greater of $5,000 or three times actual damages under Penal Code § 637.2. It also asks for punitive and nominal damages, disgorgement of profits, an injunction and attorneys’ fees.Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of U.S. residents who were recorded without authorization by Motive’s license plate readers. It also proposes two subclasses: California citizens whose vehicle data was collected by Motive cameras located in California, and U.S. residents recorded by a Motive camera installed in their vehicle as a condition of their employment. These definitions are only proposals. The court has not certified any class, and who is covered would be decided by a certification order or a settlement.How Has Motive Responded?
Motive argues that the whole case should be dismissed, and its main argument is about timing. According to the motion and a declaration filed with it, the license plate feature the complaint describes, which Motive calls its License Plate Data System, works only with the newer AI Dashcam Plus, announced January 8, 2026. Motive says the system was released for internal testing on April 14, 2026 and to customers on May 5, 2026. It says the plaintiffs stopped driving for their employers in about 2023 and 2025, that it did not supply AI Dashcam Plus units to either employer during those years, and that the plaintiffs therefore lack standing to sue. Motive also notes that the product pages cited in the complaint described license plate capture as “Coming mid-2026.”Motive makes several other arguments. It says a license plate that state law requires drivers to display, and travel on public roads, carry no reasonable expectation of privacy, so recording them cannot be a highly offensive intrusion. It argues that the ALPR law lets only someone “harmed by a violation” sue, that a violation alone is not enough, and that worry about possible misuse falls short under the 2026 California appellate decision in Mata v. Digital Recognition Network. The complaint, for its part, relies on Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, a 2026 appellate decision describing a failure to post the required policy as a harm to people’s “right to know.” Motive also argues that CIPA’s tracking-device section covers only a device attached to the tracked vehicle, not a camera mounted in another vehicle or cloud software, and that the Ohio plaintiff’s claim is barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. Motive asks the court to dismiss with prejudice, arguing that amending the complaint could not cure these problems.
What Happens Next?
The plaintiffs’ opposition is due November 2, 2026, and Motive’s reply is due November 9. Judge Martínez-Olguín is scheduled to hear the motion on December 10, 2026, and an initial case management conference is set for November 12, 2026. The court could deny the motion, grant it, or dismiss some or all claims with permission to amend. There is no settlement, payment or claim form at this stage.Questions
What is the Motive dashcam license plate lawsuit about?
Dean v. Motive Technologies, Inc., pending in federal court in Northern California, alleges that Motive’s AI dashcams and fleet software read and stored license plates, vehicle details and locations without the public usage and privacy policy that California’s ALPR law requires. Motive has not been found liable and has moved to dismiss the case.
Who could be included in the Motive class action?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of U.S. residents recorded without authorization by Motive’s license plate readers, a subclass of California citizens whose vehicle data was collected by Motive cameras in California, and a subclass of people recorded by a Motive camera installed in their vehicle as a condition of employment. No class has been certified.
Is this related to the Motive robocall settlement?
The two cases are separate. The Motive Technologies TCPA settlement resolved claims over prerecorded marketing calls and offered a $50 product voucher, with a claim deadline of July 6, 2026. The dashcam lawsuit concerns license plate and location data and has no settlement.
Is there any money available from the Motive dashcam lawsuit?
There is no money available at this stage. The case is at the motion-to-dismiss stage, with no certified class, settlement or judgment, so there is no claim form or payment. Money would become available only through a settlement or a judgment for a certified class.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint (July 24, 2026, Dkt. No. 1), Dean v. Motive Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)• Motive’s Motion to Dismiss (October 19, 2026, Dkt. No. 15)
• Docket, Dean v. Motive Technologies, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-07675-AMO (N.D. Cal.), including the August 25, 2026 reassignment order and hearing schedule
• California Civil Code § 1798.90.54 (ALPR law remedies)
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Motion to dismiss pending · hearing Dec. 10, 2026
Case Title
Dean v. Motive Technologies, Inc.
Case Number
4:26-cv-07675-AMO (filed as 3:26-cv-07675)
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Judge
Araceli Martínez-Olguín
Date Filed
July 24, 2026
Court Docket
Court Docket (CourtListener)
