Published
May 25, 2026
Updated
October 25, 2026
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Home Depot has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
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. That case, Schmierer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., has since been combined with an earlier suit, McGinity v. The Home Depot, Inc. On June 16, 2026 the court approved the parties’ stipulation consolidating them as In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-03103, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.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 consolidated complaint, filed June 30, 2026, names nine California residents as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes Emery | Reddy, PC, Milberg PLLC and Siri & Glimstad LLP. 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 denies the allegations and moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August 14, 2026. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2026. As of October 25, 2026, the court docket shows no ruling on dismissal and no class certification, and the court has set a jury trial for May 22, 2029. The allegations in this article are drawn from the complaints and court filings.
Status
Motion to Dismiss Stage
cases consolidated June 16, 2026 · amended complaint filed Sept. 14, 2026 · no settlement
Court
N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-03103
In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation, before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim · jury trial set for May 22, 2029
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
no class certified; statutory damages sought of at least $2,500 per person
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.
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.
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.
Bartholomew is now settled authority: the California Supreme Court denied review on May 13, 2026, leaving the decision standing statewide, and a run of ALPR complaints against parking operators, retailers and property owners has followed. For the statewide picture — the seven policy elements plaintiffs are auditing against, the suit filed against the camera vendor itself, and why a case's odds may turn on whether it sits in state or federal court — see our report on the California ALPR lawsuit wave.
Home Depot points the other way. In the parties’ August 2026 joint case management statement, it relies on a later Court of Appeal decision, Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc. (July 20, 2026), to argue that a plaintiff who never read or tried to read an ALPR policy cannot claim the right to know was violated, and that no plaintiff here alleges his or her data was queried, shared with police or used in an investigation. How the court weighs Bartholomew against Mata is likely to shape the motion to dismiss.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The original Schmierer complaint proposed a class of all individuals whose vehicles were captured by ALPR systems operated or controlled by Home Depot or its vendors at any California store. The June 30, 2026 consolidated complaint, as quoted in the parties’ joint case management statement, defines the proposed class as all California citizens whose vehicle tracking data was captured by Home Depot’s ALPR cameras at any California Home Depot store during the applicable limitations period through the date of class certification. The September 14 amended complaint is not publicly available on the free docket, so any later change to that definition could not be checked.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, and Home Depot has said it will oppose it.
The Cases Were Consolidated
Schmierer was not the first ALPR suit against Home Depot. McGinity v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-03103, was filed in April 2026 in the same court. The court related the two cases on June 5, 2026, and on June 16 approved the parties’ stipulation consolidating them for pretrial purposes, appointing interim co-lead counsel and allowing a consolidated complaint. The combined case now proceeds under the McGinity case number as In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation.Consolidation does not change the bottom line: there is no settlement and no claim form.
Where the Case Stands
• No settlement and no claim form. No class has been certified, and any recovery would depend on the case surviving dismissal, class certification and trial or a settlement. Any message offering a Home Depot license plate payment does not come from this case.• Motion to dismiss. Home Depot moved to dismiss on August 14, 2026, with a hearing originally noticed for October 19, 2026. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2026, and the docket shows a stipulation filed September 18 and a court order on September 21 that are not publicly available. As of October 25, 2026, the docket shows no ruling.
• Schedule. The court’s September 1, 2026 case management order referred the case to private mediation, set a further case management conference for March 8, 2027, set the close of fact discovery for September 2, 2028 and the close of expert discovery for November 4, 2028, and set a jury trial of up to ten days to begin May 22, 2029.
Home Depot’s Position
In the August 2026 joint case management statement, Home Depot says it denies the plaintiffs’ allegations and claims, that it had a compliant ALPR policy in place at all relevant times, and that the ALPR Act requires a policy to address each listed topic, not to describe it with the detail the plaintiffs want. It also argues that no plaintiff alleges having read the policy or that his or her data was queried, shared with police or used in an investigation, so no plaintiff has suffered the harm the statute requires. Home Depot says its motion to dismiss raises statutory standing, harm, causation and compliance, says it will oppose class certification, and expects to seek summary judgment if the case survives. The plaintiffs say Home Depot’s cameras captured their vehicle tracking data without a compliant policy or the required security procedures.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• Lowe's License Plate Surveillance Class Action — a similar Flock ALPR complaint against Lowe's, now removed to federal court
• 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
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Home Depot license plate settlement?
No. The consolidated case is at the motion-to-dismiss stage, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form. A jury trial is set for May 22, 2029.
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?
Schmierer was filed May 1, 2026 by five California residents, and an earlier suit, McGinity, was filed in April 2026. They are now consolidated as In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-03103 (N.D. Cal.), with nine named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes Emery | Reddy, PC, Milberg PLLC and Siri & Glimstad LLP.
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.
Is there anything to file if I shopped at a California Home Depot?
No. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form at this stage.
What are the next procedural steps?
The court has to resolve Home Depot’s challenge to the pleadings, now directed at a September 14, 2026 amended complaint. The scheduling order sets a further case management conference for March 8, 2027, the close of fact discovery for September 2, 2028 and a jury trial for May 22, 2029. The parties have said they are open to private mediation after discovery and a class certification ruling.
Sources
• CourtListener docket: In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-03103 (N.D. Cal.)• Case Management and Pretrial Order (Sept. 1, 2026)
• Amended Joint Case Management Statement (Aug. 19, 2026)
• CourtListener docket: Schmierer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:26-cv-03967 (N.D. Cal., 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
• 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.
• Plaintiffs’ counsel (per the joint case management statement): Emery | Reddy, PC; Milberg PLLC; Siri & Glimstad LLP
• Presiding judge: Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim (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 now pending as In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-03103 (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 have not been proven in court, and Home Depot denies them. This page is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Motion to Dismiss Stage — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
In re: Home Depot ALPR Litigation (consolidating McGinity and Schmierer)
Case Number
3:26-cv-03103-SK
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Presiding Judge
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim
Date Filed
April 2026 (McGinity); May 1, 2026 (Schmierer); consolidated June 16, 2026
Trial Date
May 22, 2029 (jury)
Defendants
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; The Home Depot, Inc.
Plaintiffs' Counsel
Emery | Reddy, PC; Milberg PLLC; Siri & Glimstad LLP
ALPR Vendor Named
Flock Group, Inc. (d/b/a Flock Safety)
Damages Sought
At least $2,500 per person under the ALPR Privacy Act, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees
Is There a Claim Form?
No. There is no settlement and nothing to file at this stage.
