By Steve Levine
Published: May 25, 2026
Status
Complaint Filed
filed May 1, 2026 in N.D. Cal. · allegations only · no settlement
Court
N.D. Cal. 4:26-cv-03967
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
What's Alleged
License Plate Tracking Without Notice
Flock ALPR cameras allegedly at 233 California Home Depot parking lots, data shared with police
Claim Form?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; statutory damages sought of at least $2,500 per person
What Is the Home Depot License Plate Class Action About?
On May 1, 2026, five California residents filed a proposed class action complaint against Home Depot, alleging that the retailer ran what the lawsuit calls a covert surveillance operation in its California store parking lots by using automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras to capture shoppers' vehicle data and feed it into a national law enforcement database. The case, captioned Schmierer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-03967-YGR, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.According to the complaint, Home Depot installed ALPR cameras, supplied by surveillance technology vendor Flock Safety, at the entrances and exits of the parking lots at its 233 California stores. The lawsuit alleges these cameras capture the license plate number, make, model, color, and distinguishing features of every vehicle entering the lots, log that data with precise timestamps and location, and feed it into a centralized, searchable database that law enforcement agencies across the country can access.
The named plaintiffs, William F. Schmierer, Mark Ausseiker, Elzy Linder, John Hopton, and Michael J. Harhay, are all California residents who allegedly shopped at Home Depot stores in Sacramento, Orange, and Contra Costa counties. They are represented by Emery | Reddy, PC and Milberg PLLC. The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $2,500 per person under California's ALPR Privacy Act, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, on behalf of a proposed class of all individuals whose vehicles were captured by ALPR systems at any California Home Depot store during the class period.
Home Depot has not yet filed an answer or motion to dismiss. The Court has not ruled on class certification or any of the merits. The allegations in this article are drawn from the complaint and from public reporting. Home Depot denies wrongdoing.
What Is ALPR Technology and California's ALPR Privacy Act?
Automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technology uses specialized cameras and optical character recognition software to automatically scan and record vehicle license plates, converting the images into machine-readable digital data in real time. Unlike a traffic camera that records a single violation at a single moment, ALPR cameras are continuously recording and uploading data on every vehicle that passes, building a record that can be merged across many cameras to map a vehicle's movements over time.California enacted its ALPR Privacy Act in 2015 (effective January 1, 2016) through Senate Bill 34, codified at Cal. Civ. Code section 1798.90.5 and following sections. The Legislature recognized that the collection of a license plate number, location, and timestamp over multiple points in time can identify not just a person's whereabouts but their entire pattern of movement, often without the person ever knowing the data was collected.
The Act imposes specific obligations on both ALPR operators and end-users, including private commercial entities. Among them: maintaining reasonable security procedures, and publicly posting a usage and privacy policy that includes seven mandatory elements. Those elements include the authorized purposes for collection, descriptions of authorized personnel and training, how the system is monitored, the purposes of and restrictions on data sharing, the title of the official custodian responsible for the system, accuracy measures, and the length of time data will be retained and the process for destroying it. The Act also provides a private right of action with statutory damages of not less than $2,500 per person harmed.
What Does the Lawsuit Claim Home Depot Did Wrong?
The complaint focuses heavily on the contention that Home Depot's posted ALPR usage and privacy policy fails to satisfy at least three of the seven mandatory elements required by California law. According to the complaint, Home Depot's policy allegedly:• Names no custodian. The Act requires identifying the title of the official custodian or owner of the ALPR system responsible for implementing the policy. The complaint alleges Home Depot's policy identifies no such title.
• Sets no defined retention period. The Act requires stating how long ALPR data is retained and the process for destroying it. The complaint alleges Home Depot's policy says only that data is kept "as long as necessary," which the lawsuit characterizes as circular and open-ended.
• Places no meaningful restriction on law enforcement sharing. The Act requires disclosing the purposes of, process for, and restrictions on sharing ALPR data. The complaint alleges Home Depot's policy authorizes sharing with law enforcement for "enforcement of laws and regulations" with no restriction on federal agencies, out-of-state agencies, or immigration enforcement.
Beyond the policy deficiencies, the complaint brings seven counts in total: two counts under California's ALPR Privacy Act (unauthorized access and use of ALPR information, and failure to implement a compliant policy and maintain access records); invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; intrusion upon seclusion; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; negligence and negligence per se; and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act / California Privacy Rights Act (CCPA/CPRA). Home Depot denies wrongdoing, and the Court has not ruled on the merits of any claim.
Why the Lawsuit Focuses on Flock Safety
Flock Safety (formally Flock Group, Inc.) is the vendor that allegedly supplied and operates the ALPR cameras at Home Depot's California parking lots. The complaint describes Flock as the operator of a national ALPR network that the lawsuit alleges collects more than 20 billion license plate reads per month and allows law enforcement agencies to search across thousands of connected camera networks simultaneously.The complaint alleges that Home Depot connected its California store ALPR feeds to Flock's national network, which the lawsuit claims made every shopper's vehicle data available to hundreds of law enforcement agencies, in real time. The complaint references public reporting and California government audits to argue that Flock's network has been accessed by federal agencies and out-of-state law enforcement without authorization.
The complaint cites two California incidents in particular. First, it alleges that in early 2026, the Mountain View Police Department discovered Flock had set its cameras to a nationwide sharing setting without authorization, exposing local data to federal agencies, after which the police chief shut down the city's entire Flock network. Second, it alleges that the Ventura County Sheriff's Office found in an audit that out-of-state agencies had accessed its ALPR data hundreds of thousands of times without approval, with some searches allegedly referencing immigration enforcement. The complaint argues these incidents show a pattern that exposes Home Depot's California data to the same risks.
Importantly, the complaint argues that Home Depot cannot avoid responsibility by blaming its vendor. As the ALPR operator under California law, the lawsuit contends, Home Depot had its own legal obligation to maintain a compliant policy, restrict data sharing, and keep audit records, regardless of how Flock configured the system.
The Bartholomew Decision: Why "Harm" May Not Require Misuse
A central legal question in ALPR cases is whether a person is "harmed" simply by having their plate captured under a non-compliant policy, or whether they must show their data was actually misused. The complaint relies on a recent California Court of Appeal decision to argue that no showing of misuse is required.In Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., decided February 5, 2026 (and modified February 27, 2026), the California Court of Appeal held that collecting and maintaining individuals' ALPR information without implementing and publicly posting the statutorily required policy harms those individuals by violating their right to know which entities are collecting their data and how it is used. Under that ruling, the failure to post a compliant policy is itself the harm, and the $2,500 statutory damages figure reflects a legislative intent that harm does not require a measurable monetary loss.
The complaint notes that the Bartholomew court expressly left open one question directly relevant here: whether a policy that is published but omits some mandatory elements (as the lawsuit alleges Home Depot's does) causes the same harm as having no policy at all. The plaintiffs argue the answer is yes. That question has not yet been decided by any court, and Home Depot may contest it.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes a class defined as all individuals whose vehicles were captured by ALPR systems operated or controlled by Home Depot or its vendors at any California retail store location, from the date Flock cameras were first installed at California Home Depot properties through the present.Excluded from the proposed class are Home Depot and its officers, directors, employees, and affiliates; the judge and court staff; and anyone who opts out. The complaint estimates the class could include millions of individuals, given that Home Depot operates 233 California stores drawing millions of shopper visits annually. Class certification has not been granted; Home Depot is expected to contest certification.
There Is a Companion Home Depot ALPR Lawsuit
The Schmierer case is not the only ALPR lawsuit against Home Depot. A separate proposed class action, McGinity v. The Home Depot (Case No. 4:26-cv-03103), was filed in April 2026 in the same Northern District of California court by a different plaintiffs' firm. According to public reporting, the two cases divide the timeline around when Home Depot updated its ALPR policy in late December 2025, with one case focused on the period before the update and the other on the period after.It is common for multiple class actions targeting the same conduct to be filed and then consolidated or coordinated by the court. The existence of companion cases does not change the fact that there is currently no settlement and no claim form in any of them. Both remain at early litigation stages.
What This Means for California Home Depot Shoppers
If you shopped at a California Home Depot and drove into a parking lot with Flock ALPR cameras during the class period, your vehicle data may have been captured per the descriptions in the complaint. Here is the practical situation at this stage:• There is no claim form to submit. No settlement has been reached, and any potential recovery is years away if the case progresses.
• Preserve any Home Depot visit records you may have, including receipts, dates, and store locations. If a class is certified and a settlement is reached, eligibility may require some proof of when and where you shopped.
• Review Home Depot's posted ALPR policy if you want to understand the company's stated practices; it is available on Home Depot's website.
• Be skeptical of scam communications. Newly filed class actions attract scammers who set up fake settlement websites or send phishing messages. There is no Home Depot ALPR settlement to claim at this stage; anyone promising you a payment is running a scam.
• Monitor this page for updates. OCA will track the case as it moves through Home Depot's expected motion to dismiss, class certification briefing, discovery, and any potential settlement or trial.
Home Depot's Likely Defenses and Position
Home Depot has not yet filed a substantive response in court. Based on how retailers typically defend cases like this, Home Depot's likely arguments may include: that license plates are visible in public and therefore carry no reasonable expectation of privacy; that its ALPR cameras serve a legitimate loss-prevention and security purpose; that its posted policy does comply with the statute; and that the plaintiffs cannot show concrete harm. The complaint anticipates the public-visibility argument and counters that the harm lies in the aggregation of movement data over time, not in any single plate capture.Home Depot has not admitted any wrongdoing. The Court has not ruled on the merits of any claim. This article reports what the complaint alleges and what public records show; it is not a finding of fact, and the allegations remain unproven.
Related Reading on OCA
• ALPR & Automated License Plate Reader Privacy — what ALPR is, California's ALPR Privacy Act, and your rights explained• Disney Facial Recognition Class Action — another newly filed California biometric privacy complaint
• Latest class action news and updates
• OCA database of open class action settlements
How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?
Find all the latest class actions you can qualify for by getting notified of new lawsuits as soon as they are open to claims:Official Class Action Complaint (Court Document)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Home Depot license plate settlement?No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no claim form to submit and any potential recovery is years away.
What does the lawsuit allege Home Depot did wrong?
That Home Depot used Flock ALPR cameras at its 233 California store parking lots to capture shoppers' license plate and vehicle data and share it with a national law enforcement database, without a privacy policy that meets all the requirements of California's ALPR Privacy Act.
Who filed the lawsuit?
Five California residents (Schmierer, Ausseiker, Linder, Hopton, and Harhay), represented by Emery | Reddy, PC and Milberg PLLC. Filed May 1, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Case No. 4:26-cv-03967-YGR.
How much is the lawsuit seeking?
At least $2,500 per person in statutory damages under California's ALPR Privacy Act, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. These are requested damages, not an available payout.
Does this cover Home Depot stores outside California?
No. The proposed class is limited to California stores, because the lawsuit is based on California's ALPR Privacy Act.
What can I do if I shopped at a California Home Depot?
There is nothing to file at this stage. Preserve any Home Depot receipts or visit records in case the case progresses to a settlement. Monitor this page for updates.
What are the next procedural steps?
Home Depot is expected to file an answer or motion to dismiss. After any early motion practice, the parties will move into discovery and class certification briefing. Rulings in cases like this typically take many months. Any settlement, if reached, would likely follow class certification or substantial motion practice.
Sources
• Schmierer et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-03967-YGR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Class Action Complaint filed May 1, 2026)• Daily Journal: Home Depot Sued Over License Plate Reader Use in Parking Lots
• DWM Magazine: Proposed Class Action Targets Home Depot Over Alleged Parking Lot Surveillance
• Emery | Reddy: Home Depot Accused of Secretly Sharing Customer License Plate Data With Police
• Electronic Frontier Foundation: How Cops Are Using Flock Safety's ALPR Network
• KQED: As California Cities Grow Wary of Flock Safety Cameras, Mountain View Shuts Its Off
• California ALPR Privacy Act: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.
• Companion case: McGinity v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-03103 (N.D. Cal., filed April 2026)
• Class Representatives: William F. Schmierer, Mark Ausseiker, Elzy Linder, John Hopton, Michael J. Harhay
• Plaintiffs' Counsel: Emery | Reddy, PC and Milberg PLLC
• Presiding Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (N.D. Cal.)
• ALPR Vendor Named: Flock Group, Inc. (d/b/a Flock Safety)
About This Page
This page summarizes the Home Depot license plate surveillance class action complaint filed in Schmierer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 4:26-cv-03967-YGR (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 in the complaint have not been proven in court. Home Depot denies wrongdoing. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how this case may affect you personally, contact a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Social Media Addiction
Status: Open
Pre-Qualify
Roblox - Investigation
Pre-Qualify Here
Submit Claim
$1.1M Team Group RAM Settlement
Pro Rata Cash · No Proof for Up to 5 Modules
Submit Claim
$68M Google Assistant Settlement
Deadline: August 27, 2026
Submit Claim
$87.5M Beef Prices Settlement
Deadline: June 30, 2026
Submit Claim
$31.5M Flagstar Data Breach Settlement
~$60 Cash + $100 CA · Up to $25K w/ Proof
Submit Claim| Home Depot License Plate Case Snapshot | |
| Status | Complaint Filed — No Settlement, No Claim Form |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Schmierer et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc. |
| Case Number | 4:26-cv-03967-YGR |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Presiding Judge | Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers |
| Filing Date | May 1, 2026 |
| Lead Plaintiffs | William F. Schmierer, Mark Ausseiker, Elzy Linder, John Hopton, Michael J. Harhay (all California residents) |
| Defendants | Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; The Home Depot, Inc. |
| Plaintiffs' Counsel | Emery | Reddy, PC; Milberg PLLC |
| ALPR Vendor Named | Flock Group, Inc. (d/b/a Flock Safety) |
| What's Alleged | Use of Flock ALPR cameras at 233 California Home Depot parking lots to capture vehicle data (plate, make, model, color, timestamp, location) and feed it to a national law enforcement database, without a compliant ALPR privacy policy |
| Stores Covered | California Home Depot retail locations (233 stores) |
| Stores NOT Covered | Home Depot stores outside California are not within the proposed class |
| Counts | (1) ALPR Privacy Act — unauthorized access/use; (2) ALPR Privacy Act — non-compliant policy and records; (3) CA Constitution invasion of privacy; (4) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; (5) CA Unfair Competition Law; (6) Negligence and Negligence Per Se; (7) CCPA/CPRA |
| Damages Sought | Statutory damages of at least $2,500 per person under the ALPR Privacy Act; punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees |
| Statutory Basis | California ALPR Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. (enacted by SB 34, effective January 1, 2016) |
| Key Precedent Cited | Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 5, 2026) — holding that collecting ALPR data without a compliant policy is itself "harm" |
| Companion Case | McGinity v. The Home Depot, Inc., 4:26-cv-03103 (N.D. Cal., filed April 2026) |
| Home Depot's Position | Has not yet filed a substantive court response; denies wrongdoing |
| Next Procedural Step | Home Depot to file answer or motion to dismiss; class certification briefing to follow |
| Is There a Claim Form? | No. There is no settlement and no claim form to submit. Class members do not need to take action at this stage. |
| Category | News / Class Action Complaint / Privacy / License Plate Readers / ALPR / Flock Safety / Home Depot |