Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T15:08:21Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Privacy Violations */ grammar

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-23 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref> This raised concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name=":0" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref name=":7" /> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-20 |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |archive-date= |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T13:40:48Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed broken ref

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-23 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name=":0" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref name=":7" /> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-20 |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |archive-date= |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T12:32:39Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed broken cite

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-23 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref name=":7" /> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-20 |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |archive-date= |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T12:26:11Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed broken cite

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-23 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref name=":7" /> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T12:23:34Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed broken cite

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=2025-10-23 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

OpenAI

2025-11-06T12:16:44Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{stub}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2015
|Industry=Artificial Intelligence, Technology
|Logo=Openai.png
|Type=Private
|Website=https://openai.com/
|Description=OpenAI is an AI focused megacorporation that owns ChatGPT.
}}[[wikipedia:OpenAI|OpenAI]]<ref>[https://openai.com/ OpenAI Landing Page]</ref> is an American [[Artificial intelligence]] (AI) focused company. Founded in December 2015, OpenAI is known for the Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) family of large language models, the DALL-E series of text-to-image models, and Sora, a text-to-video model. With a reported revenue of $10B in FY2025 <ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=10 Jun 2025 |title=OpenAI's annualized revenue hits $10 billion, up from $5.5 billion in December 2024 |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/openais-annualized-revenue-hits-10-billion-up-55-billion-december-2024-2025-06-09/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250610051847/https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/openais-annualized-revenue-hits-10-billion-up-55-billion-december-2024-2025-06-09/ |archive-date=2025-06-10 |access-date=2025-09-22 |website=Reuters}}</ref> and approximately 5.5B visitors per month<ref>[https://www.semrush.com/website/chatgpt.com/overview/ ChatGPT monthly traffic] </ref>, OpenAI has positioned itself has a leader in the Generative AI industry. {{Ph-C-Int}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

*User health. There have been a number of incidents of delusional disorders reportedly linked to use of ChatGPT, and other chatbots.
*Misleading advertising. ChatGPT terms of service say it should not be used to make decisions about people. However their advertising claims it is "PHD level" and makes other claims that seem to imply it is reliable. Many people use ChatGPT as if its output was meaningful, reliable, or a substitute for interaction with a person.

This is what '''OpenAI''' says as part of their data usage policy:

''We share content with a select group of trusted service providers that help us provide our services. We share the minimum amount of content we need in order to accomplish this purpose and our service providers are subject to strict confidentiality and security obligations. We do not use or share user content for marketing or advertising purposes.''

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===User Suicide (''date'')===
{{Main|link to the main article}}
[https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/tech/openai-chatgpt-teen-suicide-lawsuit Parents of 16-year-old sue OpenAI, claiming ChatGPT advised on his suicide]

Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).

Example incident two (''date'')

...

==Products==

*[[ChatGPT]]
{{Ph-C-P}}

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Artificial intelligence companies]]
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]

Article suggestions

2025-11-06T12:05:42Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed some cite errors

This page is dedicated towards providing a communal list for users to submit potential articles to feature on the wiki, and to give editors inspiration on what pages they might want to add to the wiki. If you create an article based on an entry from this list, or see that someone else has done so, please make sure to delete the row from this page in order to prevent confusion.

Sources should be inserted within the 'refs' section of the table. If using the visual editor, take advantage of '<nowiki/>'''insert reference'''<nowiki/>' via ''''ctrl + shift + k'''<nowiki/>' so that the sources are quick to add to future articles. If you are using the source editor, feel free to copy and paste the formatting from other correctly formatted references on the page. The more sources you include with an article idea, the more likely it is that others will pick the article idea up and run with it, so please attempt to include a good variety of descriptive sources!

Please take note of the wiki's [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines|Inclusion criteria]] when submitting article suggestions. If you see article suggestions here which do not fit the Wiki, feel free to remove them, leaving your reasoning in an edit note.

If you are an editor looking for further inspiration to write an article, you can also check out the [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory|Louis Rossmann video directory]] for a good collection of potential articles.

==Example==
Below is an example of what an entry should appear as:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Company
!Summary of Incident
!Refs
|-
|[[Nintendo]]
|In 2025, the company Nintendo stripped Switch 2 consoles that used the MIG switch cartridge of all online functionality
|<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Scattered Brain |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Soo... Nintendo banned my Switch 2 (Don't try the MIG Switch!) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo&t=656s |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=Jun 17, 2025 |title=Switch 2 users report online console bans after running personal game “backups” |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/06/playing-personal-game-backups-could-get-your-switch-2-banned-by-nintendo/ |access-date=Jun 19, 2025 |work=Ars Technica}}</ref>
|}

==List of incidents not yet covered==
{| class="wikitable"
!Company
!Summary of Incident
!Refs
|-
|[[ABC Financial Services]]
|Manages memberships and recurring service subscriptions for other companies. Prevents customers from being able to cancel a service by locking them into a never-ending cycle of auto renewals, and not allowing the customer to opt out of auto renewal.
|-
|Affinity / Canva
|Canva purchases Serif; the owner of perpetual license design software Affinity Publisher, Designer, and Photo on March 26th 2024. Provides a pledge to assure users that Canva will not "ruin" the suite. In October 2025, Affinity users are locked out of the community forum for a new "Creative Freedom" announcement on October 30th 2025. Complete radio silence for a whole month while they tease long term users on Twitter and Discord. Finally on October 30th 2025, the new Affinity software is announced as "free". Instead, all creative professionals that used the original software are forced to create a new Canva account to access the new Affinity and thus agree to Canva's ToS<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2025-10-30 |title=Canva Terms of Use |url=https://www.canva.com/policies/terms-of-use/ |url-status=live |website=Canva Legal Trust Center}}</ref>. Affinity redirects the pledge page to an announcement for the new software, effectively burying the original pledge<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-03-27 |title=The Affinity and Canva Pledge |url=https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/press/newsroom/affinity-and-canva-pledge |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251002083749/https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/press/newsroom/affinity-and-canva-pledge/ |archive-date=2025-10-02 |website=web.archive.org}}</ref>. Questions about Canva now being able to monetize the work of professionals to train their own AI models sold to Canva users are left unanswered. Free, but at what cost?
EDIT: Initial article has been written but needs more work, citation, and verification. [[Canva adds arbitration clause for future Affinity Studio users|See this article here]].
|<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":4" />
|-
|[[Apple]]
|$17 000 Apple Watch 18 karat gold edition out of support only 8 years after its introduction (not end of sale!). This means no software support, and, crucially, no repair or replacement parts. If the battery dies, the watch is but a paperweight.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Apple will no longer fix the $17,000 gold Apple Watch |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900158/apple-watch-edition-gold-2015-obsolete-unsupported-beyonce |website=The Verge}}</ref>
|-
|Apple, Beats
|No support for Powerbeats (4th generation) despite the headphones being under 5 years from when Apple last distributed the product for sale. The product is not listed as discontinued or vintage, and by Apple's own guidelines, should be eligible for replacement parts and repair. OEM replacement eartips cannot be purchased for any Beats earphones.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Obtaining service for your Apple product after an expired warranty |url=https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Beats Repair and Service |url=https://support.apple.com/beats/repair |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Apple store search for eartips |url=https://www.apple.com/us/search/eartips?src=alp |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-18}}</ref>
|-
|Apple App Store
|Removal of likely legal apps designed to evade law enforcement agencies accused of illegal conduct and human rights violations upon request by authorities without court order, instead citing violations of store terms. This happened in Hong Kong in 2019 with Hong Kong Police during demonstrations and in the USA in 2025 with the ICE Block app.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Apple removes ICEBlock app from App Store|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iceblock-app-store-removed-2025-10}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Apple removes police tracking app used in Hong Kong protests from its app store |url=https://hksar.org/apple-removes-police-tracking-app-used-in-hong-kong-protests-from-its-app-store}}</ref>
|-
|Atlassian
|Users forced from on-premise to cloud only subscriptions
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ascend to the cloud: The next chapter for Atlassian and our customers |url=https://www.atlassian.com/blog/announcements/atlassian-ascend}}</ref>
|-
|[[Audi]]
|Subscription-based paywalling of basic features of the Audi A3 in the EU and the UK.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=MickDrivesCars |date=2025-07-28 |title=How to ruin your car brand |url=https://youtu.be/ueHgn6UTZjk |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Haefner |first=Morgan |last2=Hodge |first2=Lawrence |date=2024-03-14 |title=Audi wants buyers to pay for basic car features |url=https://qz.com/audi-a3-buyers-must-subscribe-to-use-basic-car-features-1851333470 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/B1SHT |archive-date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-08-25 |work=Quartz}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Hundal |first=Thomas |date=2024-03-13 |title=Audi Wants European A3 Customers To Subscribe To Features That Come Standard On A Base Toyota Corolla |url=https://www.theautopian.com/audi-wants-european-a3-customers-to-subscribe-to-features-that-come-standard-on-a-base-toyota-corolla/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250208095611/https://www.theautopian.com/audi-wants-european-a3-customers-to-subscribe-to-features-that-come-standard-on-a-base-toyota-corolla/ |archive-date=2025-02-08 |access-date=2025-08-25 |work=The Autopian}}</ref>
|-
|[[Axon]]
|Tazers sold with lease agreement that makes purchase effectively a subscription.
|[https://norwoodrecord.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/4/8/114832579/norwood_record_pages_1_to_12__4sep2025.pdf <nowiki>[69]</nowiki>]
|-
|[[Cloudary Holdings Limited / Webnovel]]
|Terms of service with binding Arbitration.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Webnovel ToS |url=https://www.webnovel.com/terms_of_service}}</ref>
|-
|Devolo
|Devolo switches off servers and removes their app from stores for their "Home Control" system, thus severely reducing the functionality of their devices (apparently Z-Wave-based).
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=IT-News für Profis |url=https://www.golem.de/news/weiterbetrieb-verursacht-weitere-kosten-devolo-macht-smart-home-system-zum-grossteil-unbrauchbar-2508-199409.html |website=Golem |language=German}}</ref>
|-
|E621
|Terms of service that require agreement to forced arbitration to use the website.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=E621 |url=https://e621.net/ |url-status=live |website=E621}}</ref>
|-
|EcoVac
|Vacuum cleaner robots produced by company 'EcoVac' were found vulnerable to hacking over bluetooth allowing for remote control and access to camera feed. Security researcher Dennis Giese notified the company in December of 2023. In August of 2024, the issue was described by the company as "extremely rare in typical user environments and require specialized hacking tools and physical access to the device."
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fell |first=Julian |date=2024-10-04 |title=We hacked a robot vacuum — and could watch live through its camera - ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-04/robot-vacuum-hacked-photos-camera-audio/104414020 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Franceschi-Bicchierai |first=Lorenzo |date=2024-08-09 |title=Ecovacs home robots can be hacked to spy on their owners, researchers say {{!}} TechCrunch |url=https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/09/ecovacs-home-robots-can-be-hacked-to-spy-on-their-owners-researchers-say/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Franceschi-Bicchierai |first=Lorenzo |date=2024-08-15 |title=Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai on X: "Finally, Ecovacs responds to the researchers' findings, saying it won't fix the bugs. |url=https://x.com/lorenzofb/status/1823774980460388675}}</ref>
|-
|[[Elegoo Centauri Carbon|Elegoo]]
|The Elegoo Centauri Carbon 3d printer has been proven to use open source Klipper software which requires them to publish their changes to the code.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-28 |title=PSA: Elegoo Centauri Carbon & GPL Compliance |url=https://freethecode.lol/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-28 |website=PSA: Elegoo Centauri Carbon & GPL Compliance}}</ref>
|-
|[[Embodied]]
|This is case of "software tethering". Embodied's $799 companion robot Moxie permanently shut down once the company decided to shut down cloud services. According to Embodied's own website "Moxie relies on cloud connectivity for its core features, and it will not function once services end ... Our Terms of Service specify that services may be terminated at any time without prior notice."
|<ref>{{Cite news |last=Notopoulos |first=Katie |date=2024-12-11 |title=They bought an $800 AI robot for their kids. Now the company is shutting down — and children are having to say goodbye. |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/moxie-robot-toy-shutting-down-kids-embodied-goodbye-2024-12?op=1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250816193431/https://www.businessinsider.com/moxie-robot-toy-shutting-down-kids-embodied-goodbye-2024-12?op=1 |archive-date=2025-08-16 |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Business Insider}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Closing FAQs – Moxie Robot |url=https://moxierobot.com/pages/closing-faqs |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241126054436/https://moxierobot.com/pages/closing-faqs |archive-date=2024-11-26 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=moxierobot.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Degeurin |first=Mack |date=2024-12-10 |title=‘I love you… goodbye:’ What will happen when this companion robot suddenly dies? |url=https://www.popsci.com/technology/moxie-robot-offline/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212035257/https://www.popsci.com/technology/moxie-robot-offline/ |archive-date=2024-12-12 |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Popular Science}}</ref>
|-
|Foxit Reader
|Updater uses dark pattern to trick unsuspecting users into installing a trial version of their paid product. The checkbox is enabled again by default with each update in the hope that the user misses it by accident at some point.
|
|-
|[[Google]]
|The shutdown of game streaming service Google Stadia on Jan 19th 2023 happened relatively gracefully, with remaining subscriptions refunded and further purchases made impossible. Controllers bought by consumers were offered a conversion process that repurposed them for use as generic Bluetooth game controllers, although the official conversion method at this time is actively provided by Google in form of a webpage and cannot be archived from that state, and on top of that only works in Chrome; at the time of writing the conversion page is expected to remain until December 31st 2025, and this is the date set by a second deadline extension. No official archivable means of conversion are offered at this time.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Thank you for playing with us. Stadia was shut down on January 18, 2023. |url=https://stadia.google.com/gg/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-20 |website=Stadia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-03-08 |title=Stadia Announcement FAQ |url=https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/12790109 |url-status=live |website=Stadia Help}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mustafa |first=Mahmoud |date=2024-12-10 |title=You now have one extra year to update your Stadia Controller’s firmware |url=https://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/mustafa-mahmoud/you-now-have-one-extra-year-to-update-your-stadia-controllers-firmware/ |website=KitGuru.net}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Stadia Bluetooth mode |url=https://stadia.google.com/controller/index_en_GB.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-20 |website=Stadia}}</ref>
|-
|[[Google Chromecast]]
|Chromecast has transitioned from a standalone product to one that requires the Google Home app for setup and control. This change prevents customers who either don't own a smartphone or prefer not to use the app from accessing their Chromecast devices. As a result, certain televisions—such as the Caixon EC43S1UA, which relied on built-in Chromecast functionality—can no longer be used as intended. This effectively removes a key feature from a product that was already purchased, diminishing its value or rendering it unusable altogether.
|
|-
|Google TLS Changes
|Google's new requirements to certificate authorities require separate authority/signing chains to be used to issue Server Authentication and Client Authentication certificates. Therefore, starting 11 February 2026, Let's Encrypt will no longer include the Client Authentication EKU on default certificates
|
|-
|Google
|Google apparently plans to reduce the interval of publishing source code of security patches they consider non-critical. This is another blow to the custom ROM community.
Right now we don't have these incidents organised chronologically, maybe we should have a table with a timeline of measures Google takes to enshittify and close down Android (more APIs moved to Play Services, Developer verification, withholding AOSP device trees for Pixel devices to mess with Graphene OS, now delayed source code disclosure). What's worst, they always cite safety as a reason.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Exclusive: Google wants to make Android phones safer by switching to ‘risk-based’ security updates |url=https://www.androidauthority.com/android-risk-based-security-updates-3597466/}}</ref>
|-
|Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, but largely Google-led
|Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Safari are removing XSLT 1.0 support, which could break critical parts of government's websites worldwide<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dimant |first=Dimitrii "Mamut" |date=2025-08-10 |title=XSLT removal will break multiple government and regulatory sites across the world #11582 |url=https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11582 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=Github (specifically the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group's HTML standards repo, controlled by Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and Apple)}}</ref>. There are valid security reasons for them to want to stop supporting this 1999-era standard, however they have had 26+ years to update to a newer standard (such as the 2017-era 3.1 standard, which is backwards compatible and would allow these sites to continue to work<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-03-21 |title="XML Path Language (XPath) 3.1: W3C Recommendation 21 March 2017" |url=https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-31/ |url-status=live |website=W3C}}</ref>). The single unpaid developer maintaining these libraries has more or less retired after getting flooded with impossible to satisfy security requests from these companies<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wellnhoffer |first=Nick |date=2025-05-08 |title=Triaging security issues reported by third parties |url=https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/913 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=gitlab.gnome.org}}</ref>. There is an existing project called XRUST to implement the 3.1 standard<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-09 |title=XRust: XPath, XQuery, and XSLT for Rust |url=https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/markup-rs/xrust |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=gitlab.gnome.org}}</ref>, which is 2/3rds of the way through supporting all the features of 1.0 - the XSLT part fully supports all the 1.0 features at this point. XSLT is part of the W3C Consortium's open web standards for formatting and presenting XML, and is also how RSS works, so RSS feeds would stop working as well, disrupting the livelihoods of podcasters<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rijo |first=Luis |date=2025-08-20 |title=Google targets RSS feeds in new XSLT removal proposal |url=https://ppc.land/google-targets-rss-feeds-in-new-xslt-removal-proposal/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=PPC-Land}}</ref>. This has led to questions of who owns the web - the public (including the government) who paid for and laid down the highways / web infrastructure - or a handful of large corporations? <ref>{{Cite web |last=Branscombe |first=Mary |date=2025-09-01 |title=XSLT Debate Leads to Bigger Questions of Web Governance |url=https://thenewstack.io/xslt-debate-leads-to-bigger-questions-of-web-governance/ |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=The New Stack}}</ref>
|
|-
|[[GoPro]] Hero 12
|GoPro Hero 12 requires the GoPro app to be installed before you can use the camera. Many currently used devices are not compatible with the app, therefore making use of the camera difficult to impossible for new owners or upon camera factory reset. There's also the question of what data the app collects and whether it requires login and or camera activation.
|
|-
|[[H&R Block]]
|Marketing paid products as free, deleting users' tax data upon downgrading to free versions, and forcing users to contact support to get access to the free version of the tax filing software. FTC alleges coercive and obstructive techniques are used to make users pay for services they don't need as well.
|
|-
|Hewlett-Packard(HP)
|Hewlett-Packard(HP) is removing support pages for older products, making it more difficult to continue to use older products, generally making the support experience worse, and trying to coerce users to buy new products.
|<ref>{{Cite web |first=gremlin12345 |date=17 Oct 2025 |title=HP will remove perfectly good documentation for products they no longer support. This seems very anti-consumer. |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1o91l44/hp_will_remove_perfectly_good_documentation_for/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251021202329/https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1o91l44/hp_will_remove_perfectly_good_documentation_for/ |archive-date=2025-10-21 |access-date=2025-10-21 |website=reddit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=Oct 21, 2025 |title=HP Keeps Getting Worse - LMG Clips |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNM_xUcYpK0 |url-status=live |work=Linus Media Group}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=HP support pae for the j4500-j4600 series |url=https://support.hp.com/in-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-officejet-j4500-j4600-all-in-one-printer-series/3645081 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
|[[Hikvision]]
|Chinese surveillance camera manufacturer complicit in Uighur genocide which used to advertise recognition of praying and ramadan fasting among its selling points. Similarly to [[Flock License Plate Readers|Flock]], they are in use world wide and likely feed directly into the Chinese government's surveillance infrastructure and could conceivably be used to find dissidents world-wide. Recently, [https://netzpolitik.org/2025/hikvision-hersteller-der-hamburger-ki-ueberwachungskameras-ist-fuer-menschenrechtsverletzungen-bekannt/ the city of Hamburg has installed them] ([https://netzpolitik-org.translate.goog/2025/hikvision-hersteller-der-hamburger-ki-ueberwachungskameras-ist-fuer-menschenrechtsverletzungen-bekannt/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp Google Translate Version in English]).
|
|-
|[[Internet radios]]
|I'd like a page where I can share information about internet radios "openness." Few allow you to enter a radio station's URL (which I would consider the least intrusive option). Most depend on third-party websites or apps; [https://www.sangean.com/uk/blog/149 some of which have already bricked devices].
|
|-
|[[IPVideo Corporation]] (owned by [[Motorola]])
|Manufacturer of surveillance hardware. The notable example that brought them to my attention is the Halo 3C/3C-PC Smart Sensor, which is deployed in places such as school bathrooms and subsidized/social housing. This system has a variety of sensors on it, from air quality ones (for detecting smoking/vape usage) all the way to microphones (ostensibly for audio analysis to identify aggression and gunshots, without the capability to stream the audio elsewhere, but this not a limitation built into the hardware and could be changed by a firmware update).
|<ref>{{Cite_web |last=Reynaldo |last2=nyx |name-list-style=amp |date=2025-10-10 |title=DEF CON 33 - Unmasking the Snitch Puck: IoT surveillance tech in the school bathroom |url=https://youtu.be/WCnojaEpF2I |publisher=DEF CON}}</ref><ref>{{Cite_web |access-date=2025-10-26 |url=https://www.pelco.com/sensors |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250922000017/https://www.pelco.com/sensors |archive-date=2025-09-22 |title=HALO Smart Sensor Suite |website=PELCO}}</ref>
|-
|[[IRobot]]
|Creator of Roomba automatic floor vacuums, CEO made statement in 2017 about selling customer's floor plan data. This company and the data was almost bought by Amazon, but fell through in 2024 after threats by EU Regulators
|<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wolfe |first=Jan |date=2017-07-28 |title=Roomba vacuum maker iRobot betting big on the 'smart' home |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-irobot-strategy-idUSKBN1A91A5/ |work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Zeff |first=Maxwell |date=2024-01-29 |title=Roomba Won’t Give Amazon a Map of Your Home After Merger Implodes |url=https://gizmodo.com/roomba-won-t-give-amazon-map-home-after-merger-implodes-1851205940 |website=Gizmodo}}</ref>
|-
|[[itch.io]], [[Night School Studios]], [[Netflix]]
|In September 2024, users who purchased Oxenfree on itch.io were warned that the game was going to be pulled from the platform on October 1st. Consumers would not be able to download the installers after this date, so they would lose access unless they had them backed up. Users speculated that Netflix, the parent company of the development studio, had ordered the move; however, no response from Netflix or the developers was ever published. This is particularly notable because it is against itch.io's terms of service: "Users shall retain a license to this content even after the content is removed from the Service."
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=itch corp |date=15 Apr 2023 |title=itch.io Terms of Service |url=https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907004719/https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |archive-date=7 Sep 2024 |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=itch.io}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=ShawnS |date=31 Jan 2025 |title=OXENFREE |url=https://delistedgames.com/oxenfree/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250321070400/https://delistedgames.com/oxenfree/ |archive-date=21 Mar 2025 |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=Delisted Games}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Colp |first=Tyler |date=9 Sep 2024 |title=Another reminder that your digital library isn't forever: Oxenfree will be completely removed from Itch.io next month |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/adventure/another-reminder-that-your-digital-library-isn-t-forever-oxenfree-will-be-completely-removed-from-itch-io-next-month/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250523111125/https://www.pcgamer.com/games/adventure/another-reminder-that-your-digital-library-isn-t-forever-oxenfree-will-be-completely-removed-from-itch-io-next-month/ |archive-date=23 May 2025 |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=PC Gamer}}</ref>
|-
|Japan Times, The
|The Japan Times uses DMCA to take down an open source study resource for Genki and Quartet workbooks.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Clydesdale |first=Seth |date=2025-09-11 |title=Important Information Regarding Genki and Quartet Study Resources |url=https://ko-fi.com/post/Important-Information-Regarding-Genki-and-Quartet-D1D21L4B1S}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Update Regarding Genki and Quartet Study Resources DMCA Situation |url=https://ko-fi.com/post/Update-Regarding-Genki-and-Quartet-Study-Resources-Y8Y21M1F5E}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-03 |title=All Exercises for Genki/Quartet Study Resources Have Been Removed |url=https://ko-fi.com/post/All-Exercises-for-GenkiQuartet-Study-Resources-Wi-R6R81M8LLN}}</ref>
|-
|LBRY Foundation, Odysee
|Community first decentralization & Odysseys plan to enable censorship by switching away from the opensource LBRY network.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=The LBRY Foundation |url=https://lbry.org/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-08 |quote=The LBRY community invites everyone to join us in building a more free and open way to share content and information online.}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Watson |first=RT |date=2024-06-06 |title=Decentralized YouTube alternative Odysee acquired by Forward Research despite content concerns |url=https://www.theblock.co/post/298888/decentralized-youtube-alternative-odysee-acquired-by-forward-research-despite-content-concerns |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=The Block}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Jun |last2=Grintsvayg |first2=Alex |last3=Kauffman |first3=Jeremy |last4=Fleming |first4=Charles |date=2020 |title=LBRY: A Blockchain-Based Decentralized Digital Content Marketplace |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9126007 |journal=2020 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS) |location=Oxford, UK |publisher=IEEE |doi=10.1109/DAPPS49028.2020.00005 |isbn=978-1-7281-6978-1 |via=IEEE Xplore}}</ref>
|-
|[[Lowes]]
|Lowes uses flock cameras and other AI powered cameras to collect data and build a profile on "prospective, current, or former Lowe's customers". Their cameras point away from their stores.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-06 |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/n6mTn |archive-date=2025-08-07 |access-date=2025-09-15 |website=404 Media}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-26 |title=Lowe’s U.S. Privacy Statement |url=https://www.lowes.com/l/about/privacy-and-security-statement |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/eGh91 |archive-date=2025-08-05 |access-date=2025-09-15 |website=Lowes}}</ref>
|-
|McDonald's/Taylor
|McDonald's US mandates which ice cream machine has to be used by franchise licensees. The company that makes these machines uses deliberately obfuscated error codes to force restaurant owners to use their expensive tech service to fix them and reset the machines. The company makes more money from these "repairs" support than with actual sales. Not strictly end consumer, but the pattern warrants documenting imo.
A similar problem exists with Doremi (Dolby) cinema projectors where their DRM leads to a ridiculous number of actions breaking the so-called "marriage" (projector-media block unity), requiring a costly technician to reset it. This one needs sources researched, though, as I don't have one on hand.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Why McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Are Always Broken and How To Fix Them |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uCpY3tFTIA}}</ref>
|-
|[[Meta]]/[[Facebook]], [[Yandex]]
|Automatic opt-in of user-generated content being used for the purposes of training AI.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Borgesius |first=Frederik |date=Apr 24, 2025 |title=Post on akademienl.social |url=https://akademienl.social/@Frederik_Borgesius/114392662340468118 |access-date=Jun 25, 2025 |website=akademienl.social}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=Apr 24, 2025 |title=AP: kom nu in actie als je niet wil dat Meta AI traint met jouw data |url=https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/actueel/ap-kom-nu-in-actie-als-je-niet-wil-dat-meta-ai-traint-met-jouw-data |access-date=Jun 25, 2025 |work=autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl}}</ref>
|-
|[[Meta]]/[[WhatsApp]]
|In a new lawsuit, an ex-engineer alleges that 1500 engineers had unrestricted access to WhatsApp user data and that the company "failed to remedy the hacking and takeover of more than 100,000 accounts each day, ignoring his pleas and proposed fixes and choosing instead to prioritize user growth". (ongoing)
|[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/08/meta-user-data-lawsuit-whatsapp]
|-
|[[Microsoft]]
|Microsoft uses software engineers based in China to work on US Defense Department systems with laughably ineffective precautions. I think this is relevant in the context of Microsoft's attitude towards cloud security. In the past, master keys have been stolen by Chinese hackers and from my understanding, it's not even clear to what extent those groups still have access to Microsoft's internal systems, and by extension, Microsoft customers'. This needs more research though.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dudley |first=Renee |date=2025-07-15 |title=A Little-Known Microsoft Program Could Expose the Defense Department to Chinese Hackers |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts-pentagon-defense-department-china-hackers |website=ProRepublica}}</ref>
|-
|[[Microsoft Windows 11]]
|The Windows 11 Bing Wallpaper app, which offers regularly changing desktop wallpapers, opens bing.com at every single click onto the desktop and tries to make bing.com the default search engine during launch. This is the latest step in a series of invasive actions to get Windows users to use Bing and Edge.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 Oct 2025 |title=Windows 11’s Bing Wallpaper app opens <nowiki>Bing.com</nowiki> if you click anywhere on the desktop |url=https://www.windowslatest.com/2025/10/26/windows-11s-bing-wallpaper-app-opens-bing-com-if-you-click-anywhere-on-the-desktop/ |website=Windows Latest}}</ref>
|-
|[[Mitsubishi Motors]]
|Mitsubishi Motors has a rich history of consumer protection, compliance issues and privacy breaches. These include concealing safety defects, falsifying fuel economy data, and being fined for false advertising. Following the trend of subscription services for the automotive industry, Mitsubishi paywalls built-in features including remote start, SOS, collision detection, and car tracking through its app Mitsubishi Connect subscription service.
|[https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mitsubishi-fined-42-million-by-japans-consumer-affairs-agency-115026.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com] [https://leakd.com/leaks/mitsubishi-motors-vietnam-customer-data-breached/?utm_source=chatgpt.com] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors?utm_source=chatgpt.com] [https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/?order=pen_year&parent=mitsubishi-motors&sort=&utm_source=chatgpt.com][https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/en/newsroom/newsrelease/2017/20171129_3.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
|-
|Navdy, Harman International
|Device discontinued and no updates, device can be used offline for 1 year until it stops working.
https://www.reddit.com/r/navdy/
|
|-
|Nothing
|Nothing brings home-screen ads (can be disabled manually) and bloatware to its lower end models despite previously boasting about being bloatware free
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Floemer |first=Andreas |date=2025-10-27 |title=Phone 3a: NothingOS 4.0 brings optional ads to the lock screen |url=https://www.heise.de/en/news/Phone-3a-NothingOS-4-0-brings-optional-ads-to-the-lock-screen-10904033.html |access-date=2025-10-27 |website=Heise Online}}</ref>
|-
|[https://www.skystone.games/ Skystone Games]
|Boundary, a multiplayer online-only first-person shooter, got shut down just a year after its release by Skystone games, and its publishing rights relinquished, citing "ongoing delays and a lack of updates from the developer". Studio Surgical Scalpels (the developer) stated that the publisher decissions were "extremely sudden and unreasonable", and attempted to "regain the rights to boundary". The game has been offline for more than a year at the time of writing, and no refunds or communications to the userbase has been made by Skystone Games.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-19 |title=Boundary - End of service notice |url=https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1364020/view/4209257868262605607?l=english |url-status=live |access-date=2025-07-07 |website=Steam}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-30 |title=Boundary Shut Down: Who's to Blame? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr8IhV1fovE |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
|[[Slack]]
|Slack threatened to deactivate the Slack workspace and delete all message history of a nonprofit unless they agreed to a price hike of $200k yearly and also pay an extra $50k within a week. There were no prior warnings from Slack. A few years prior to this incident, they had agreed to migrate from the free nonprofit plan to a $5k per year plan.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-18 |title=Slack is extorting us with a $195k/yr bill increase |url=https://skyfall.dev/posts/slack |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250930075808/https://skyfall.dev/posts/slack |archive-date=2025-09-30}}</ref>
|-
|[[Sony]]
|The PSVita required a proprietary memory system and came with no usable memory natively; as a result, to effectively use the console, one had to purchase official, expensive memory cards from Sony. The PCH-1000 also had a proprietary charging port, making it nearly impossible to replace the cable should it break once Sony's support for the console dwindled. The charging port issue was later addressed via an updated console which changed the port to a microUSB connection. However, the expensive proprietary memory card issue remained and was exacerbated by Sony's blockage of using the PCH-2000's 1GB of storage while a memory card was inserted. Sony's continued efforts to block homebrew via firmware updates limited the owner's ability to continue using the device years after support was dropped for the console.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=PlayStation Vita Launches From 22 February 2012 |url=https://blog.playstation.com/archive/2011/10/19/playstation-vita-launches-from-22-february-2012/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://blog.playstation.com/archive/2011/10/19/playstation-vita-launches-from-22-february-2012/ |archive-date=2011-10-19 |access-date=2025-10-18 |website=<nowiki>PlayStation.Blog</nowiki>}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=PS Vita Slim internal storage not usable with a memory card |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131013181238/http://www.justpushstart.com/2013/10/ps-vita-slim-internal-storage-usable-memory-card/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131013181238/http://www.justpushstart.com/2013/10/ps-vita-slim-internal-storage-usable-memory-card/ |archive-date=2013-10-13 |website=Just Push Start}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Types of card media |url=https://manuals.playstation.net/document/gb/psvita/basic/media.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://manuals.playstation.net/document/gb/psvita/basic/media.html |archive-date=2012-08-29 |access-date=2025-10-18 |website=Playstation}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Meet the Hackers Breathing New Life Into Sony’s Abandoned PlayStation Vita |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/meet-the-hackers-breathing-new-life-into-sonys-abandoned-playstation-vita/? |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-18 |website=Vice}}</ref>
|-
|[[Superbox]]
|Android TV box manufacturer Superbox remotely locks consumers' devices if they were sold below the manufacturer's minimum specified prices and asks consumers to contact the retailer when they complain.
They are not the first to do something like this. [[Deye]] locked down inverters in the US that they suspected might be gray imports.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I5-rAyFQrk |website=YouTube |type=Video}}</ref>
|-
|[[TikTok]]
|Integrated AI tools to track user behaviors even more for the purposes of selling to advertisers
|<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sato |first=Mia |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=TikTok will give advertisers even more data on trends and users |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/678255/tiktok-advertiser-summit-ai-targeting-data-seo |access-date=Jun 25, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>
|-
|UP3 By [[Jawbone]]
|Approximately 2011, Pioneering startup company from San Francisco, had revolutionary fitness trackers. In 2017 with no notice to customers they stole personal data and shut down app which in turn, bricked devices. Highly likely went bankrupt and sold to sister company to manipulate customer services and rights. Now owned by Aliph brands.
|
|-
|Wheatstone Corporation
|Wheatstone Corporation are a manufacturer of professional broadcast equipment, mainly audio consoles and interfaces that utilise their proprietary Wheatnet audio over IP protocol.
Wheatstone restricts access to firmware updates, software configuration tools and software. You must open a support ticked in order for them to send you a download link to these software tools, they make it very difficult to access software required to make their hardware audio interfaces work, even stating they want proof of purchase (not just a licence key) before they will even give you the download link. Managing licences is also non-existent and you will need to contact support, and as such a fee is imposed.
|
|-
|[[Wireless Power Consortium]]
|After monopolizing wireless charging market Qi turned from an open standard into a proprietary.
Version 1.3 introduced "secure authentication between the transmitter and the receiver", i.e. in order to operate every charger must include an expensive proprietary chip licensed only to certified members. This results in increased development and manufacturing costs directly passed onto consumer. Version 2.2, unlike previous versions, "is available for WPC Members only".
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Qi Certification Is Changing and We've Got You Covered |url=https://www.nxp.com/company/about-nxp/smarter-world-blog/BL-QI-CERTIFICATION-IS-CHANGING| website=NXP Semiconductors}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web |title=Download the Qi Specifications |url=https://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/knowledge-base/specifications/download-the-qi-specifications/| website=Wireless Power Consortium}}</ref>
|-
|Wolfgang Puck, Bread maker
|Some of the bread makers have anti repair screws in them to prevent people from repairing them themselves. Needs more citations.
|
|-
|[[World Orb]]
|World Network (Sam Altman/Open AI) scheme to collect biometric data on all people. Tied to cryptocurrency, AI schemes. Supposedly way for people to show they are human (run by the people who are trying to make a profit from AI).
|
|}

==List of themes not yet covered==
Consumer Rights Wiki is not an encyclopedia.

*Before proposing or making a theme article, see if you can find an article that covers the topic on wikipedia, or some other reference. If you can, just use a reference to that.
*Check the list of theme articles [[:Category:common terms]], to be sure there isn't already an article on the topic, or one closely related. Sometimes a theme may be covered by generalizing an existing article.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Theme
!Summary of Theme
!Refs
|-
|
|
|
|}

==List of companies doing the right thing==
It would be helpful to include examples of companies doing the right thing, even if they aren't, strictly speaking, consumer products.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Company
!Good deed
!Refs
|-
|Tektronix
|Provided extensive product data on unsupported products to a museum, vintageTEK, and thus to tekwiki and the rest of the community.
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lenihan |first=Thomas F. |date=2012-02-28 |title=Copyright Notice |url=https://vintagetek.org/copyright-notice/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250828004431/https://vintagetek.org/copyright-notice/ |archive-date=2025-08-28 |access-date=2025-10-18 |website=vintageTEK museum}}</ref>
|-
|Ulanzi
|The company offers a tutorial on how users can mix their own fog juice to use with Ulanzi mini fog machines from readily available low-cost ingredients, whereas competitors sell proprietary fog juice at extortionate prices, refuse to release the formula and refuse to honour the warranty if users use anything but the OEM brand with their machines.
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tutorial {{!}} How to DIY Ulanzi FM01 Fog Machine Juice? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiq1B6-dcEM |type=Video}}</ref>
|-
|APSystems
|After requests from users, the company released a firmware update that adds a local API to their EZ-1M solar micro inverter, allowing it to remain fully usable if the company ends support for the device
|<ref>{{Cite web |title=APsystems EZHI Local API User Manual |url=https://global.apsystems.com/document/apsystems-ezhi-local-api-user-manual/ |website=global.apsystems.com}}</ref>
|}

==See Also==

*[[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]]
*[[Other Channels - Video Directory|Other Channels - VIdeo Directory]]

==Reference List==
<references />
[[Category:Sources]]
'

Palantir

2025-11-06T11:43:38Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{StubNotice}}{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2003-05-06
|Industry=Software
|Type=Public
|Website=https://www.palantir.com
|Description=Palantir Technologies Inc. is a public, American company that develops Software and Platforms as a service, typically requiring data mining.
|Logo=Palantir logo.svg}}

[[wikipedia:Palantir|Palantir]] Technologies Inc. is a data analytics company founded in 2003 with early backing from tech investor Peter Thiel and In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Natalie |date=2020-09-20 |title=Palantir: The controversial data firm now worth £17bn |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54348456 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250601074059/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54348456 |archive-date=2025-06-01 |access-date=2025-09-12 |website=bbc.com |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref> Its platforms Gotham and Foundry, help governments and enterprises integrate data for secure AI-driven decision-making at scale.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home {{!}} Palantir |url=https://www.palantir.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250909203722/https://www.palantir.com/ |archive-date=2025-09-09 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Palantir}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==
===Impact summary===
*'''User freedom'''
:Restricted access to predefined applications and workflows; limited autonomy due to centralized control by deploying organizations.
*'''User privacy'''
:Privacy protections are built into platforms, but use in sensitive government applications raises civil liberties concerns.
*'''Business model'''
:Software licensing model focused on B2B and government sectors. Revenue driven by high-value contracts in complex data environments.
*'''Market control'''
:Strong position in government and enterprise data analytics due to specialization and security authorizations; faces scrutiny over ethical implications of its applications.

==Consumer-impact==
===User freedom===
Palantir's platforms, particularly Foundry, offer a ''Consumer mode'' designed to restrict user access to specific applications and workflows without granting broader platform access. This mode is configured to ensure that:
*Consumer users can only access target applications and necessary resources, with API access restricted to their specific needs.
*They are prevented from seeing the full Foundry login page or are automatically redirected if already authenticated, aiming for a seamless experience.
*Builders and administrators can enforce that consumers never receive roles beyond the consumer role, and they can isolate users from discovering other users or groups within the organization.

However, this controlled access environment may limit user autonomy, as all permissions and visible features are strictly defined by the organization deploying the Palantir software, rather than by the end-consumer themselves.

===User privacy===
Palantir emphasizes its role as a ''data processor'', not a data controller, meaning that customers (e.g., businesses or government agencies) retain full ownership and control over their data. Key privacy aspects include:
*Data handling: Palantir states it does not collect, hold, store, or sell customer data for its own purposes. It does not use customer data to train AI models, and each customer's data is walled off from others.
*Privacy protections: The company integrates privacy and governance features into its products, including data access controls, usage limitations, and detailed audit trails to help customers comply with data protection regulations.
*Transparency: Palantir claims to provide tools for customers to have transparency and control over how data is accessed and used. However, the company itself does not have unfettered access to customer data; any access by Palantir engineers requires explicit customer instruction and is revoked after project completion.

Despite these measures, Palantir's work with government agencies (e.g., defense, intelligence, and immigration) has drawn criticism regarding potential implications for civil liberties and privacy due to the sensitive nature of the data processed.

===Business model===
Palantir's business model is based on ''licensing its software platforms'' (Gotham, Foundry, Apollo) to organizations in the public, private, and non-profit sectors . Important points include:
*Revenue sources: The company generates revenue through government contracts (e.g., with the Department of Defense, ICE, and intelligence agencies) and commercial clients (e.g., banks, automotive manufacturers, and healthcare systems).
*Value proposition: Palantir's platforms help customers integrate and analyze large, siloed datasets to improve decision-making and operational efficiency. The company emphasizes that its software reduces implementation time from months to days.
*Stance on data: Unlike many tech companies, Palantir does not monetize personal data. Instead, it earns revenue through software licensing and related services.

Palantir has experienced significant growth, with 2024 revenue projected between $2.805 billion and $2.809 billion, driven by government contracts and demand for AI solutions.

===Market control===
Palantir holds a ''strong position in the data analytics and AI sector'', particularly in government and high-sensitivity industries. Factors influencing its market control include:
*Specialization: The company focuses on complex data integration and analysis for large organizations, with platforms designed for highly regulated environments.
*Competitive advantage: Palantir's ability to secure major government contracts and its authorization for Mission Critical National Security Systems by the U.S. Department of Defense contribute to its market strength.
*Market presence: As of early 2025, Palantir had a market capitalization of approximately $35 billion, though it faces questions about growth sustainability and valuation.
*Criticism and scrutiny: The company has faced criticism for its role in government surveillance and immigration enforcement, which may impact its market perception and relationships.

==Incidents==
===WikiLeaks Proposals (''2010'')===

The '''Team Themis WikiLeaks proposal''' was a 2010–2011 plan by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal, and Berico Technologies, discussed with the law firm Hunton & Williams, to undermine WikiLeaks and supporters using cyberattacks, disinformation, and pressure on journalists such as Glenn Greenwald<ref>{{cite web |last=Anderson |first=Nate |title=Spy Games: Inside the Convoluted Plot to Bring Down WikiLeaks |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/02/spy/ |website=Wired |date=February 14, 2011 |access-date=September 10, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The WikiLeaks Threat: An Overview by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal, and Berico Technologies |url=https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf |website=WikiLeaks |date=2011 |access-date=September 10, 2025}}</ref>. The materials surfaced after Anonymous hacked HBGary in February 2011 and released tens of thousands of emails<ref>{{cite news |last=Arthur |first=Charles |title=Anonymous attacks US security company |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/07/anonymous-attacks-us-security-company-hbgary |work=The Guardian |date=February 7, 2011 |access-date=September 10, 2025}}</ref>. Following publication, Palantir apologized and severed all contacts with HBGary, and Berico said it had discontinued all ties with HBGary Federal<ref>{{Cite web |last=Andy |first=Greenberg |date=2011-02-11 |title=Palantir Apologizes For WikiLeaks Attack Proposal, Cuts Ties With HBGary |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palantir-apologizes-for-wikileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910164506/https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2025/09/10/designing-the-pause-rethinking-goal-setting-for-the-future/?malcolm=A&api=true&streamIndex=1&isNextJS=true |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Olson |first=Parmy |title=Anonymous Ready To Dump More HBGary E-mails; Launch AnonLeaks |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/02/11/anonymous-ready-to-dump-more-hbgary-e-mails-launch-anonleaks/ |website=Forbes |date=February 11, 2011 |access-date=September 10, 2025}}</ref>. [[Bank of America]] and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said they had not hired the firms for this work<ref>{{cite news |last=Halliday |first=Josh |title=Anonymous: US security firms 'planned to attack WikiLeaks' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/15/anonymous-us-security-firms-wikileaks |work=The Guardian |date=February 15, 2011 |access-date=September 10, 2025}}</ref>.

===ICE Partnership (''Since 2014'')===
<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-28 |title=Palantir Contracts Raise Human Rights Concerns before Direct Listing |url=https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/palantirs-contracts-with-ice-raise-human-rights-concerns-around-direct-listing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910164812/https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/palantirs-contracts-with-ice-raise-human-rights-concerns-around-direct-listing/ |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Amnesty International USA}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Allyn |first=Bobby |date=2025-05-03 |title=Palantir’s 'spy tech' set to power Trump admin priorities |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5372776/palantir-tech-contracts-trump |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910165241/https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5372776/palantir-tech-contracts-trump |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=NPR}}</ref>

- Investigative Case Management

- Investigative Tools (FALCON)

- ImmigrationOS <ref>{{Cite web |last=Ho |first=Rosemarie |date=2025-04-17 |title=Palantir, ICE Agree to $30 Million Tech Contract |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/ice-palantir-new-technology-30-million-visa-overstays-self-deportation-2025-4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910165935/https://www.businessinsider.com/ice-palantir-new-technology-30-million-visa-overstays-self-deportation-2025-4https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5372776/palantir-tech-contracts-trump |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Business Insider}}</ref>

- Data Collection

===Data Analysis on Facebook Data acquired from Cambridge Analytica (2016, 2018)===
<ref>{{Cite web |last=Confessore |first=Nicholas |last2=Rosenberg |first2=Matthew |date=2018-03-27 |title=Spy Contractor’s Idea Helped Cambridge Analytica Harvest Facebook Data |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/cambridge-analytica-palantir.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910170708/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/cambridge-analytica-palantir.html |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=The New York Times}}</ref>

==Controversies==

===Project Maven Defense Drones (Since 2018)===
<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-05-29 |title=Contracts For May 29, 2024 |url=https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3790490/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910172658/https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3790490/ |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=U.S. Department of War}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Becky |date=2019-12-10 |title=Palantir Took Over From Google on Project Maven |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-took-over-from-google-on-project-maven-2019-12 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910173141/https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-took-over-from-google-on-project-maven-2019-12 |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Business Insider}}</ref>

===Second Trump Administration Stock Ownership (2025)===
<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schwellenbach |first=Nick |date=2025-05-24 |title=Stephen Miller’s Financial Stake in ICE Contractor Palantir |url=https://www.pogo.org/investigations/stephen-miller-conflicts-of-interest |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910173802/https://www.pogo.org/investigations/stephen-miller-conflicts-of-interest |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Project On Government Oversight (POGO)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Miller |last2=Stephen |date=2025-01-01 |title=Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25976892-miller-stephen/#document/p5 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910174554/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25976892-miller-stephen/#document/p5 |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=DocumentCloud}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Nick |first=Schwellenbach |last2=Neil |first2=Gordon |date=2025-08-25 |title=Gold Rush: Top Trump Officials’ Silicon Valley Ties |url=https://www.pogo.org/investigations/gold-rush-top-trump-officials-silicon-valley-ties |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250910175143/https://www.pogo.org/investigations/gold-rush-top-trump-officials-silicon-valley-ties |archive-date=2025-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-10 |website=Project On Government Oversight (POGO)}}</ref>

===Predictive Policing===
Uses sensitive information to profile individuals on how likely they are to cause disturbance by government agencies. Notable examples include ICE and several city police forces as part of a "Predictive policing" program.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Predictive Policing in LA: LAPD Employs Palantir for Surveillance |url=https://www.ajs.org/predictive-policing-in-la-lapd-employs-palantir-for-surveillance/ |website=American Judicial System}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
<references />

Bloomberg DMCA strikes GamersNexus video

2025-11-06T11:41:51Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{Stub}}GamersNexus, a pro consumer tech publication had their YouTube video taken down by [[Bloomberg]] as they claimed a DMCA violation on a fair use snippet from their coverage of Donald Trump's speech.

==Background==
On August 18, 2025 GamersNexus uploaded their documentary on GPU smuggling to China for AI training purposes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://gamersnexus.net/gpus-news/timeline-gpu-export-controls-nvidia-gpu-bans-ai-gpu-black-market|title=TIMELINE: GPU Export Controls, NVIDIA GPU Bans, & AI GPU Black Market|date=2025-08-18|work=GamersNexus|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250820164205/https://gamersnexus.net/gpus-news/timeline-gpu-export-controls-nvidia-gpu-bans-ai-gpu-black-market|archive-date=2025-08-20|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Bloomberg DMCA strikes GamersNexus video==
On August 20, 2025, Bloomberg filed a DMCA takedown on GamersNexus' three and a half hour GPU smuggling documentary as they used a small credited snippet of current US President Donald Trump's speech.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/GamersNexus/comments/1mw5vtu/so_the_big_story_got_taken_down/|title=So, the big story got taken down.|author=u/Jaded-Explanation-96|date=2025-08-21|work=Reddit|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/8o92n|archive-date=2025-08-22|url-status=live}}</ref> The video has since been reuploaded to the [[Internet Archive]].<ref>{{Cite web |author=nixass |date=2025-08-22 |title=Bloomberg DMCA strikes gamersnexus smuggling documentary |url=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44983043 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/0NJJx |archive-date=2025-08-23 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=YCombinator |quote=It's available on the Internet Archive - <nowiki>https://archive.org/details/the-nvidia-ai-gpu-black-market-investigating-smuggling-corruption-governments</nowiki>}}</ref>

===Bloomberg's response===
{{Ph-I-ComR}}

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}
[[Category:Stub]]

Asustor Drivestor NAS

2025-11-06T11:39:40Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{Stub}}
{{ProductCargo
|Company=Asustor
|ProductLine=Drivestor, Drivestor AS1102T, Drivestor AS1104T, Drivestor AS3302T, Drivestor AS3304T
|ReleaseYear=2025
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Home NAS, Office NAS
|Website=https://www.asustor.com/
|Description=Asustor Drivestor NAS series offers affordable, high-speed home and small office storage with efficient data access and media streaming.
|Logo=}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}
*Video hardware acceleration transcoding will no longer works<ref name="AsustorRN">{{Cite web |title=ADM Release Notes |url=https://www.asustor.com/service/release_notes |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251023231301/https://www.asustor.com/service/release_notes |archive-date=2025-10-23 |access-date=2025-10-23 |work=Asustor |quote=Due to the termination of vendor driver and/or software support, starting with ADM 5.0, Drivestor and Drivestor Pro series NAS will no longer support hardware accelerated transcoding and USB IP printers. Please click here <nowiki>[https://www.asustor.com/product/status_detail?id=10]</nowiki> for details.}}</ref>
*USB printer will be discontinued and no longer work<ref name="AsustorRN" />

==Incidents==
===Video Hardware Acceleration Disabled After ADM 5.0 Update on Asustor Drivestor Models (''2025'')===
Asustor Drivestor NAS models affected by the update:

*Drivestor AS1102T<ref name="FSN">{{Cite web|url=https://www.asustor.com/product/status_detail?id=10|title=Feature Support Notice|date=2025-08-28|work=Asustor|access-date=2025-10-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250904154437/https://www.asustor.com/product/status_detail?id=10|archive-date=2025-09-04|url-status=live}}</ref>
*Drivestor AS1104T<ref name="FSN" />
*Drivestor Pro AS3302T<ref name="FSN" />
*Drivestor Pro AS3304T<ref name="FSN" />

After updating the OS to the latest release (ADM 5.1) will loose the following features:
*certain video formats will no longer be supported => video formats not specified
*updated libraries in ADM are not compatible with ffmpeg patches provided by Realtek. This affects NAS ASUSTOR NAS devices running Realtek CPUs. Which means hardware accelerated transcoding will no longer be supported after upgrading to ADM 5.0. Only video formats natively supported by the browser will remain playable while transcoding commonly used formats may not play properly.
*USB IP printer support will be discontinued
*components of the USB drivers will not be compatible with ADM 5.0. This means USB IP printer functionality, that is, connecting to a USB printer plugged into an ASUSTOR NAS through ASUSTOR Control Center will no longer be supported in ADM 5.0. Only network printer functionality will be available.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Asustor]]

Quidd

2025-11-06T11:35:03Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors and updated url status - couldnt find an archive

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Quidd
| Type = Private
| Founded = 2016
| Industry = Entertainment
| Official Website = https://market.onquidd.com/
| Logo = Quidd.svg
}}

'''Quidd''' was a privately held American collectible app founded in 2016 by Michael Bramlage and Erich Wood.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Quidd |url=https://www.linkedin.com/company/quidd-inc |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=Linkedin}}</ref> According to their LinkedIn, the app had 19 employees, over 8 million users and represented 325 brands as collectible digital stickers. In 2017, the app was #1 in search and #5 in the App Store's entertainment category.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=13 Oct 2017 |title=1️⃣ in Trending searches and 5️⃣in Entertainment?! We’ll take it! 👏😎🎉 |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/918843147429564416 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> In 2019, the company would be bought by the Hong Kong-based company Animoca Brands, who would move the 2.1 billion individually serialized digital collectibles on the blockchain.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Takahashi |first=Dean |date=7 Aug 2019 |title=Animoca Brands buys Quidd for up to $8 million as it moves into blockchain collectibles |url=https://venturebeat.com/business/animoca-brands-buys-quidd-for-up-to-8-million-as-it-moves-into-blockchain-collectibles/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=VentureBeat}}</ref> In 2022, the company would introduce "Mintables," which let users turn their stickers into NFTs<ref name="A2022">{{Cite web |last=Otieno |first=Nicholas |date=22 Jun 2022 |title=Quidd Launches New Platform Mintables, Enabling Users to Mint Digital Collectibles into NFTs |url=https://blockchain.news/news/quidd-launches-new-platform-mintablesenabling-users-to-mint-digital-collectibles-into-nfts |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=blockchain.news}}</ref> and convert them into Etherium.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bramlage |first=Michael |date=22 Mar 2023 |title=Lightning Fast Minting (TM) 😀 Also, don’t have ETH or even know what ETH is? Who cares. We’ll cover your gas fees. What’s a gas fee? Who cares. Doesn’t matter either. Don’t want to mint? Who cares. You don’t have to. It’s up to the collector, as it should be. |url=https://x.com/mbram/status/1638599791490768909 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> These brands included Dr. Seuss,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Loizos |first=Connie |date=22 Dec 2021 |title=This Dapper Labs-backed company is turning Dr. Seuss characters into NFT trading cards |url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/22/this-dapper-labs-backed-company-is-turning-dr-seuss-characters-into-nft-trading-cards/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=TechCrunch}}</ref> L.O.L Suprise,<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 Mar 2022 |title=MGA Entertainment Partners With Quidd for L.O.L. Surprise! ™ Digital Collectibles and NFTs |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mga-entertainment-partners-quidd-l-120000526.html |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=finance.yahoo.com}}</ref> Disney,<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 May 2022 |title=Bare Tree Media and Quidd Team Up to Offer Digital Collectibles for Popular Licensed Brands |url=https://www.newswire.com/news/bare-tree-media-and-quidd-team-up-to-offer-digital-collectibles-for-21714386 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=NewsWire}}</ref> Spongebob,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bramlage |first=Michael |date=30 Dec 2023 |title=Quiddward! Super excited for @SpongeBob on @quidd … It’ll be hard to stay quiet on this one. Details coming soon! |url=https://x.com/mbram/status/1708162937871835631 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> Rick and Morty,<ref name="A2022" /> and others.

==Consumer impact summary==

====Freedom====
According to a Quidd operator, the terms allow Quidd to take away collections from users without reason.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@millerflip89 |date=8 Jan 2025 |title=Long time Quidd opp here, Quidd and their T.O.S and privacy policy was to make sure in stating it could take entire collections at any time without notice. #1 issue is once crypto was involved all value of any item in app was brought to zero due to it being valued off QUIDD TOKEN |url=https://x.com/millerflip89/status/1876974310406885844 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> This can be confirmed with the latest revision of the terms (July 14, 2020) in the "Quidd Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability" section, where Quidd will only refund users a maximum of $100 for damages or lost profits.<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 Jul 2020 |title=Terms of Use |url=https://quidd.co/terms |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240909141011/https://quidd.co/terms |archive-date=9 Sep 2024 |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Quidd]]}}</ref> Most importantly, Quidd states that users "do not own the Virtual Coins or the Virtual Goods that are exchanged using the App" but rather have a "limited license" to their collections and coins.

====Privacy====
The privacy policy states that Quidd can collect information on your device, including the operating system, processor information, MAC address, location, network type, language, and time spent on certain pages.<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 Jul 2020 |title=Privacy Policy |url=https://quidd.co/privacy |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241207061804/https://quidd.co/privacy |archive-date=7 Dec 2024 |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Quidd]]}}</ref> There are also mentions of sharing user analytic data with third-party companies.

====Business model====
Quidd's business model was to have users purchase coins and packs with real money.

==Incidents==

===Data breach (2019)===
In 2019, the Quidd portal was hacked, exposing 4 million user accounts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Baran |first=Guru |date=15 Apr 2020 |title=Hackers Stolen 4 Million Quidd Username and passwords and Shared on Hacking Forum |url=https://cybersecuritynews.com/4-million-quidd/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=Cyber Security News}}</ref> The information in these accounts included usernames, email addresses, and passwords from the hacked accounts. The data was made for sale in October of that year.

===Discord server (2021)===
On July 3, 2021, users discussed cdh chase packs that would be falsely advertised and mentioned the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 as a basis for a lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lawsuits incoming? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/od1cjv/lawsuits_incoming/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

[[File:Quidd Google Play Reviews (1).png|right|thumb|alt=|A review confirming the antisemitism.]]
On July 10, 2021, a user in the Quidd Discord server alleged the CEO bought a Star Trek award he was selling for $1,200 as a way to show the value in the marketplace.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Only worth it if you buy from yourself! Guess they probably don't pay tax either! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/ohpzn0/only_worth_it_if_you_buy_from_yourself_guess_they/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> On the same day, a moderator on the server was seen making antisemitic remarks regarding an employee.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Quidd mod proud to be banned from topps aps for selling on ebay and racial messages to employees. |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/nlpubf/quidd_mod_proud_to_be_banned_from_topps_aps_for/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

On May 15, 2022, a user alleged some staff accounts were given funds to "pump demand" for drops and pass cards, with a moderator mentioning the user's first name and state in a reply they will "smack" them.<ref>{{Cite web |title=So when quidd gets called for giving cash to staff accounts to buy drops and pass cards (to pup demand) they Doxx a user and threaten to assault them! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/uqdm9v/so_when_quidd_gets_called_for_giving_cash_to/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> A similar incident was alleged in June where server mods would "pass cards" between each other, which was against the terms of service.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Quidd did say anyone passing cards for chases would get suspended. Wonder if that includes the Mods and their squad? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/o72ril/quidd_did_say_anyone_passing_cards_for_chases/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title="Trading cards" is against "fair play" ToS... Unless its mods doing it to get high value mintables. |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/oq7c0u/trading_cards_is_against_fair_play_tos_unless_its/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> The server rules would prevent users from posting cheating or foul play evidence in the server.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Got it. Mods are above the Rules and you have to report their issues to them which they ignore. But good that they self apoint themselves as above the rules after they been breaking ToS the whole time! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiddTrading/comments/o753ki/got_it_mods_are_above_the_rules_and_you_have_to/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

===Sudden closure of service (2025)===
{{Quote|[[File:Quidd App Pop-up message.PNG|thumb|right|200px|alt=|The message given to users starting January 3.]] It is with a heavy heart that we share the news of Quidd’s closure. Since our beginning, we have been honored to build a space where collectors, artists, and enthusiasts could come together to celebrate the vibrant world of digital collectibles. Your creativity, passion, and unwavering support have been the heartbeat of Quidd, and for that, we are forever grateful.

Every interaction, every piece of art, and every collaboration has left an indelible mark on us, filling us with both gratitude and inspiration. It has been our privilege to witness the incredible community you’ve built—a testament to your shared love for creativity and innovation.

As of today, January 3, 2025, all transactions and services on Quidd will cease. Between now and January 31, 2025, you may request the withdrawal of your cash deposit funds by clicking the ‘Request Withdrawal’ button below.

We understand this news may be difficult, and we are here to support you during this transition. If you have any questions or need assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us at support@myquidd.com. We also encourage you to visit our website and follow our social channels for the latest updates, as the Quidd app will no longer be available.

In regards to your collections, we are currently reviewing options and plan to have an update shortly.

To every member of the Quidd community: thank you for allowing us to be a part of your journey. We will cherish the memories we’ve created together.

'''With heartfelt gratitude,'''

''The Quidd Team''}}

On January 3, 2025, the app would receive an unclosable pop-up stating "Quidd is closing its doors. Please go to market.onquidd.com for more information." On their website, they do not state a reason for the closure, but rather they thanked the users for utilizing the service and tell users to withdraw their funds manually.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Production - Quidd Website |url=https://quidd.cloudflareaccess.com/cdn-cgi/access/login/market.onquidd.com?kid=d95872ea280134ff85dcee5d5067bff15d7bf097473d524f84bde571ad5d9baa&redirect_url=%2F&meta=eyJraWQiOiI0YjI2MWU0YWMzMTJlZDA0MzI2M2FjODcxNzZkOTgwMjYzNjA3M2Y5ZmI0MzlmMWE2YzVlOGM0NjQxMmZhMzEwIiwiYWxnIjoiUlMyNTYiLCJ0eXAiOiJKV1QifQ.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.l4iyPp5qjvlNi0B9oX7iAr1GoalKk7RojL7XMUXdSlgSMqO-AKZHDpSkusun6kWZeNvMC3ZlggpspocjuvNLQXbGatFAIZUpJ9E-SCu4vOF0VpLEZv3w_FUR_ascQwIIn5PCUBNnWB9hbA4QQJmhsznfqa6FxS-3-e9T5tubWlGokVmYxoAKcMIpCIxqaTWL4RoEVCGajP2TbS10GoASCUkRGC7W61THyPWYGGBF8pOy_R11nOD8Yg2Y7Dv68eeVui8OFALhfZsyZ7Xfwf1z5kNXqAblJEtuF0G3BV7LPDy67m8r2uT2YbhjzBnRq2QqqJklv8qSnYm6mwuegipa5w |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=quidd.cloudflareaccess.com}}</ref> At the time, users could only log into the website and withdraw their current funds from their accounts, which did not include total collection value or sales.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@ssymes101 |date=4 Jan 2025 |title=What's the likelihood of sales proceeds also being available for withdrawal? |url=https://x.com/ssymes101/status/1875358003639284012 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> Interestingly, rather than giving an early announcement about the closure on December 23, Quidd released a Betty Boops Holiday Magic collection set.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=23 Dec 2024 |title=Betty Boops Holiday Magic 💋❄️ drops today! 🗓️ Monday 12/23 ⏰ 5pm ET {{!}} 2pm PT <nowiki>https://market.onquidd.com/brands/5889/packs?routes=5889</nowiki> #BettyBoop #Quidd |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/1871267200008421877 |url-status=dead |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> However, on December 20, the Twitter/X account stated "Quidd offices will be closed for the holidays from December 20, 2024, to January 2, 2025."<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=20 Dec 2024 |title=Quidd offices will be closed for the holidays from December 20, 2024, to January 2, 2025. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to reconnecting with you in the new year. Happy Holidays! 🎄☃️🎁 |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/1870192787737526622 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

On January 4, Quidd announced they are working with POP Culture, Inc. to preserve user collections.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=4 Jan 2025 |title=🚨Update regarding Quidd assets: POP Culture, Inc. is working to preserve your collections As a first step, connect with them using the form below. This will help them make the transition as smooth as possible by giving you timely updates on your collections and the transition process. <nowiki>https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI</nowiki> |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/1875652152590545369 |url-status=dead |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> Users would have to manually fill a Google Form with their email and Quidd username to have the ability to save their collection.<ref>{{Cite web |title=POP Culture, Inc. is Working to Preserve Your Collections |url=https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfuoNA6c20z934i9rwoVKYtULX_kmP1cT3yVUK7rbeRnLu24Q/viewform |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=Google Forms}}</ref> Many users took this announcement as empty promises<ref>{{Cite web |last=@Joe22367619 |date=4 Jan 2025 |title=Sounds like more empty promises. What about people who has transactional / withdrawable balances ? You’re only refunding back deposits. |url=https://x.com/Joe22367619/status/1875655325430509816 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> and requested previous functionality, such as minting and selling.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@Dogstar3c |date=5 Jan 2025 |title=We want our money back theives and I think the IRS needs to investigate all those that made financial decisions especially @mbram who appears to have taught how to money laundering. I feel 4 a couple of the staff who weren't scammers but f**k me the highers belong in jail |url=https://x.com/Dogstar3c/status/1875741590008033765 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=@s1vh |date=10 Jan 2025 |title=Will POP Culture, Inc. let us mint our mintables? Because announcing closure without giving us a time window for minting so we can move our assets away from the platform truly feels like a rug. 🤨 |url=https://x.com/s1vh/status/1877675184364114392 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

As of March 2, 2025, the popup has been updated to state "Quidd was shut down on 31st December 2024." with no mention of the website. Going to the website now redirects to "quidd.cloudflareaccess.com" which requires email verification to log in. On March 7, users who filled out the Google Form received an email from Pop Culture, Inc. stating "we were unable to reach a final agreement to acquire the platform due to a variety of factors out of our control."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mailchi.mp/onshushu.com/quidd-collectibles-update|title=Quidd Collectibles Update|work=MailChimp|date=2025-03-07|access-date=2025-03-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250322184303/https://mailchi.mp/onshushu.com/quidd-collectibles-update|archive-date=2025-03-22|url-status=live}}</ref>

<gallery>
File:Quidd App Pop-up message 03-2025.PNG|The updated popup as of March 2, 2025.
File:Quidd App Website 03-2025.png|The result of typing "market.onquidd.com" into a web browser as of March 2, 2025.
File:Quidd Collectibles Update.png|The full email from Pop Culture Inc. stating their inability to purchase Quidd.
</gallery>
====Implications====
Before the shutdown, users could buy and sell NFT collectibles on the Quidd marketplace for virtual currency, which could be exchanged for real money through a cash account.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cash Account |url=https://intercom.help/quidd/en/collections/2696326-cash-account |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240915231810/https://intercom.help/quidd/en/collections/2696326-cash-account |archive-date=15 Sep 2024 |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[Quidd]]}}</ref> In addition, it was alleged the founder Micheal Bramlage promised users before the 2019 acquisition that users could keep their collections even if the service closes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wiseman |first=Antonieu |date=4 Jan 2025 |title=People literally spent thousands of dollars on here with a clear understanding that we could keep our collections for 100 plus years even if quidd shuts down is what @mbram said years ago |url=https://x.com/Ayyee38/status/1875339313501843827 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> In the past, collectibles would be sold for as high as $255-$500 each depending on their "rarity"<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=5 Mar 2021 |title=It's LeBron vs. Spider-Man vs. Captain Kirk vs. Shrimp Rick over on Quidd. Just a normal day in the marketplace. |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/1367685868455092225 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> with users spending hundreds of dollars to complete collectible sets.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@DonnieLemon69 |date=22 Jan 2025 |title=I collected hundreds of dollars worth of Atari NFT from Quidd had all the sets.. Sad. |url=https://x.com/donnielemon69/status/1882145343925834149 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> In the first week of March 2021, over $53,000 worth of withdrawals were processed.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@quidd |date=14 Mar 2021 |title=Update on withdrawals: - $53,000+ processed last week - 2x the previous week (!!!) - Paid out to nearly 200 collectors - All eligible requests processed Friday afternoon - Average time from request to cash: 3 days! Digital collecting paid for some nice dinners on Friday 💸😎 |url=https://x.com/quidd/status/1371110813398937613 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

Due to the failure of Pop Culture, Inc.'s ability to acquire Quidd, all of the user's collectible stickers and minted NFT's are inaccessible, with no way for users to sell their collections.
<gallery>
File:Quidd app 2017.jpg|An example of the Quidd app in 2017.
File:Quidd app intro 5.PNG|Discusses how users can profit off of selling digital collectibles.
File:Quidd app intro 6.PNG|Discusses how users can use profits to "buy a pizza or even a Porchse".
File:Quidd app intro 7.PNG|Discusses how user collections are securely stored on the cloud and "aren't going anywhere".
File:Quidd app intro 8.PNG|Discusses how users can "own your collectible forever" through the blockchain.
</gallery>

[[File:Quidd Google Play Reviews.png|right|thumb|alt=|Google Play store reviews after service shutdown.]]
With their announcement on Twitter/X, users compared this behavior from Quidd to a "[https://www.coinbase.com/learn/tips-and-tutorials/what-is-a-rug-pull-and-how-to-avoid-it rug pull]."<ref>{{Cite web |last=@spencer_hames |date=9 Jan 2025 |title=wait so all the money i put into stuff and packs i cant sell because you want to rug pull us? that class action lawsuit will hit our bank accounts in a good way and a bad way in yours. |url=https://x.com/spencer_hames/status/1877188802642325972 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> In addition, many users warned Quidd of a [[class action lawsuit]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=@Lex_407 |date=4 Jan 2025 |title=Assets and funds that were made in sales, which at this moment, it says I have no funds. You guys better figure things out or there will be a lot of us filing a class action. |url=https://x.com/Lex_407/status/1875563383279472987 |url-status=live |access-date=21 Apr 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/quidd-digital-collectibles/id1063166978 App Store]
*[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.quidd.quidd&hl=en_US Google Play]
*[https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/brooklyn/profile/internet-service/quidd-inc-0121-171724/customer-reviews Better Business Bureau]
*[https://quiddcollecting.fandom.com/wiki/Quidd Unofficial Quidd wiki]

[[Category:Quidd]]

Verkada Inc.

2025-11-06T11:26:52Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =Private
| Founded =2016
| Industry =Physical security
| Official Website =https://www.verkada.com/
| Logo =Verkada logo.png
}}'''[[wikipedia:Verkada|Verkada Inc.]]''' was founded in 2016 by Filip Kaliszan, and joined by James Ren, Benjamin Bercovitz, and Hans Robertson. Kaliszan, Ren and Bercovitz are all graduates of Stanford University where they created and sold their first company CourseRank. Hans Robertson was one of the co-founders of [[Cisco Systems, Inc.|Meraki]] (acquired by [[Cisco Systems, Inc.|Cisco]] in 2012.) The company is headquartered in San Mateo, California.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About Verkada |url=https://www.verkada.com/about/ |access-date=28 May 2025 |website=Verkada}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===User freedom/Business model===
Verkada cameras are designed to be used with their cloud management web interface called Verkada Command and are not natively configured to use open and standard streaming protocols. To use or configure these products you must purchase valid Verkada annual licensing for each individual device. If your Verkada licensing becomes expired, hardware function and software access to the devices will be revoked. You will no longer be able to use or configure existing devices until licensing is restored.

"Customer must purchase one or more Licenses to use the Software for at least the number and type of Hardware units, Supported Third Party Devices, and/or Product Features that the Customer manages by means of the Software (collectively, “'''Valid Licensing'''”)... If Customer does not maintain Valid Licensing, then (i) Customer will have limited or no access to Customer Data, Product Features, and the Software, and (ii) the Hardware will not function as designed.

Verkada owns and retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Software and the System Data, and owns all intellectual property embodied in the Hardware and accessories."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Verkada End User Agreement |url=https://legal.verkada.com/#eua |access-date=28 May 2025 |website=Verkada Legal Center}}</ref>

==Incidents==

===Data breach===
On March 8, 2021, Verkada was hacked by an international group including maia arson crime and calling themselves the "APT - 69420 Arson Cats," which gained access to their network for about 36 hours and collected about 5 gigabytes of data.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 Mar 2021 |title=Security camera hack exposes hospitals, workplaces, schools |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/security-camera-hack-exposes-hospitals-workplaces-schools/ |access-date=28 May 2025 |website=SeattleTimes}}</ref>

Initially, it was reported that the scope of the incident included live and recorded security camera footage from more than 150,000 cameras.<ref>{{Cite web |date=9 Mar 2021 |title=Hackers Breach Thousands of Security Cameras, Exposing Tesla, Jails, Hospitals |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-09/hackers-expose-tesla-jails-in-breach-of-150-000-security-cams |access-date=28 May 2025}}</ref> It was later reported that 97 customers' video and images data were accessed with 4,530 cameras across these organizations which the attackers may have accessed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Summary: March 9, 2021 Security Incident Report |url=https://www.verkada.com/security-update/report/ |access-date=28 May 2025}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Cisco Systems, Inc.]]

==References==

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
<references />

Vizio fined by the FTC for collecting and selling user data without consumer consent

2025-11-06T11:17:14Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{StubNotice}}

On February 6th, 2017, The [[Federal Trade Commission|Federal Trade Commission (FTC)]] filed a lawsuit<ref>{{Cite news |date=2017-02-06 |title=VIZIO, INC. and VIZIO Inscape Services, LLC |url=https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/162-3024-vizio-inc-vizio-inscape-services-llc |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220514204212/https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/162-3024-vizio-inc-vizio-inscape-services-llc |archive-date=2022-05-14 |access-date=2025-08-14 |work=The Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> against American Electronic Company [[Vizio|VIZIO]] alleging privacy violations. FTC counted unfair tracking, deceptive omission regarding smart interactivity, and deceptive representation regarding smart interactivity. The Commission alleged VIZIO had software installed on their smart televisions which collected user data, which they then sold to advertisers. {{IncidentCargo
|Company=Federal Trade Commission, Vizio
|StartDate=2017-02-17
|EndDate=2017-02-17
|Status=Resolved
|ProductLine=VIZIO Smart Televisions
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Privacy
|Description=VIZIO tracks Smart Television owners without consent.
}}
==Background==
VIZIO was founded in 2002 and by 2007 they were already known for their affordable TVs. In 2011, they released their first smart TV line. This new line had built in software that would allow them to do things like connect to internet, use Bluetooth and install apps. A few years after that, in 2015 VIZIO launched their own operating system for these TVs called [[SmartCast]] that utilized [[Apple Air Play]] and [[ChromeCast]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mashirenko |first=Anatoliy |date=2024-11-25 |title=Evolution of the Vizio TVs 2007-2024 |url=https://en.tab-tv.com/evolution-of-the-vizio-tvs/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241207045953/https://en.tab-tv.com/evolution-of-the-vizio-tvs/ |archive-date=2024-12-07 |access-date=2025-08-14 |work=Tab-Tv}}</ref>
==[Incident]==
{{Ph-I-I}}

===[Company]'s response===
{{Ph-I-ComR}}

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}
[[Category:Vizio]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-11-06T11:12:21Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] (OSA) is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant. Another duty filters non-verified users from interacting with content made from an "adult user" ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-15-10 Section 15.10])<ref name="rossmann:1">{{Cite web|date=August 1, 2025|last=Rossmann |first=Louis |title=Tea app & UK Online Safety Act - the world is becoming a black mirror episode :(| url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNNsCuEvR5w&t=114 |ref=rossmann:1 |website=[[YouTube]] |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>. These non-verified users will also be less visible, provided the adult user has toggled it.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by Ofcom of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by Carnegie UK, working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by William Perrin and Professor Lorna Woods, outlining the proposal for social media regulation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Tackling Online Harms |url=https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225063325/https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |archive-date=2024-12-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref> The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Sim |first=Kate |date=August 7, 2025| title=The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship| url=https://novaramedia.com/2025/08/07/the-online-safety-act-has-nothing-to-do-with-child-safety-and-everything-to-do-with-censorship/ |website=Novara Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by Michelle Donelan, the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under Kier Starmer's Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[https://avpassociation.com/ Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA)] was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].

The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |website=404 Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> and political videos<ref name=":6" /> to be heavily suppressed and labelled "harmful".

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, only ID verification can correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On 30 July 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On 11 August 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, Ofcom issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service 4chan requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of the [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250615131417/https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025, Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Data breaches including ID documents==
Since the Online Safety Act came into effect, at least one known data breach has included sensitive ID documents used for age verification. Note that these breaches may ''not'' be linked directly to age verification methods implemented for OSA compliance, but nonetheless highlight the risks of sensitive ID documents being handled by private organizations.

===Discord Third-Party Customer Service (5CA)===
On 3 October 2025, [[Discord]] issued a press release announcing "a Security Incident Involving Third-Party Customer Service [5CA]", in which "The unauthorized party [...] gained access to a small number of government‑ID images (e.g., driver’s license, passport) from users who had appealed an age determination".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-03 |title=Update on a Security Incident Involving Third-Party Customer Service |url=https://discord.com/press-releases/update-on-security-incident-involving-third-party-customer-service |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251006163040/https://discord.com/press-releases/update-on-security-incident-involving-third-party-customer-service |archive-date=2025-10-06 |access-date=2025-10-07 |website=discord.com}}</ref> The total number of ID images exposed was approximately 70,000. The data accessed came from an age-related appeals process which has been in place since before the OSA came into effect, and is used in conjunction with an "Automatic Age Check" system using k-ID.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-12-19 |title=Help! I'm old enough to use Discord in my country but I got locked out? |url=https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041820932-Help-I-m-old-enough-to-use-Discord-in-my-country-but-I-got-locked-out |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-13 |website=Discord}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
According to analysis by Cloudwards, [[Google]] searches for "how to get around age verification" and "is VPN legal in the UK" saw a massive growth of over 450 thousand and 380 thousand percent respectively.<ref name=":5" /> United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of 16 August 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is a website which was created in response to the Act's implementation and is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==
The act has been [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/uk-online-safety-act/ opposed] as early as December 2023 by Internet Society.

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if the internet community doesn't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but believes that it is a really important thing that the community jump in front of.

The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves. The act also shifts the responsibility of child safety to the government, who in turn shift it to the websites, who in turn shift it to a brand new identity and age verification industry.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister Peter Kyle said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Ofcom]]
*[[Data Protection Act 2018]]
*[[Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom]]
*[[General Data Protection Regulation]]

==References==
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-11-06T11:08:42Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] (OSA) is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant. Another duty filters non-verified users from interacting with content made from an "adult user" ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-15-10 Section 15.10])<ref name="rossmann:1">{{Cite web|date=August 1, 2025|last=Rossmann |first=Louis |title=Tea app & UK Online Safety Act - the world is becoming a black mirror episode :(| url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNNsCuEvR5w&t=114 |ref=rossmann:1 |website=[[YouTube]] |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>. These non-verified users will also be less visible, provided the adult user has toggled it.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by Ofcom of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by Carnegie UK, working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by William Perrin and Professor Lorna Woods, outlining the proposal for social media regulation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Tackling Online Harms |url=https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225063325/https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |archive-date=2025-12-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref> The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Sim |first=Kate |date=August 7, 2025| title=The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship| url=https://novaramedia.com/2025/08/07/the-online-safety-act-has-nothing-to-do-with-child-safety-and-everything-to-do-with-censorship/ |website=Novara Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by Michelle Donelan, the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under Kier Starmer's Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[https://avpassociation.com/ Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA)] was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].

The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |website=404 Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> and political videos<ref name=":6" /> to be heavily suppressed and labelled "harmful".

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, only ID verification can correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On 30 July 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On 11 August 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, Ofcom issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service 4chan requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of the [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250615131417/https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025, Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Data breaches including ID documents==
Since the Online Safety Act came into effect, at least one known data breach has included sensitive ID documents used for age verification. Note that these breaches may ''not'' be linked directly to age verification methods implemented for OSA compliance, but nonetheless highlight the risks of sensitive ID documents being handled by private organizations.

===Discord Third-Party Customer Service (5CA)===
On 3 October 2025, [[Discord]] issued a press release announcing "a Security Incident Involving Third-Party Customer Service [5CA]", in which "The unauthorized party [...] gained access to a small number of government‑ID images (e.g., driver’s license, passport) from users who had appealed an age determination".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-03 |title=Update on a Security Incident Involving Third-Party Customer Service |url=https://discord.com/press-releases/update-on-security-incident-involving-third-party-customer-service |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251006163040/https://discord.com/press-releases/update-on-security-incident-involving-third-party-customer-service |archive-date=2025-10-06 |access-date=2025-10-07 |website=discord.com}}</ref> The total number of ID images exposed was approximately 70,000. The data accessed came from an age-related appeals process which has been in place since before the OSA came into effect, and is used in conjunction with an "Automatic Age Check" system using k-ID.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-12-19 |title=Help! I'm old enough to use Discord in my country but I got locked out? |url=https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041820932-Help-I-m-old-enough-to-use-Discord-in-my-country-but-I-got-locked-out |url-status=live |access-date=2025-10-13 |website=Discord}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
According to analysis by Cloudwards, [[Google]] searches for "how to get around age verification" and "is VPN legal in the UK" saw a massive growth of over 450 thousand and 380 thousand percent respectively.<ref name=":5" /> United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of 16 August 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is a website which was created in response to the Act's implementation and is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==
The act has been [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/uk-online-safety-act/ opposed] as early as December 2023 by Internet Society.

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if the internet community doesn't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but believes that it is a really important thing that the community jump in front of.

The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves. The act also shifts the responsibility of child safety to the government, who in turn shift it to the websites, who in turn shift it to a brand new identity and age verification industry.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister Peter Kyle said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Ofcom]]
*[[Data Protection Act 2018]]
*[[Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom]]
*[[General Data Protection Regulation]]

==References==
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

The rights of residential and holiday mobile homeowners (England)

2025-11-06T10:57:01Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: formatting

The term ‘mobile home’ covers a variety of accommodation units, such as ‘caravan’, ‘park home’ or ‘lodge’, which are located on a site/park and can be transported from place to place but the caravan site the rights to tell you to leave when they want and it's even been recognized by Parliament.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=20 May 2025 |title=The rights of residential and holiday mobile homeowners (England) |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-rights-of-residential-and-holiday-mobile-homeowners-in-england/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624135150/https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-rights-of-residential-and-holiday-mobile-homeowners-in-england/ |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |website=House of Commons Library}}</ref>

The law distinguishes between a residential mobile home (in which the owner lives all year-round) and a mobile home which is used for holidays.

==Issue==

Caravan owners have certain rights regarding their caravan sites, including the right to a written statement of the agreement, protection from eviction without a court order, and the right to be informed about any changes in site fees. However, the level of protection can vary, as the static caravan industry in the UK is not fully regulated.

==Pitch fee==
You have to pay a ‘pitch fee’ to the park owner to rent the land your park home sits on as chosen by the site owner.

The park owner can propose to change it once a year. They must give you 28 days’ notice in writing. You or the park owner can apply to a tribunal to decide the pitch fee if you cannot agree.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 Jun 2025 |title=Park (mobile) homes |url=https://www.gov.uk/park-mobile-homes/charges |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624135935/https://www.gov.uk/park-mobile-homes/charges |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

==Covid-19==
During Covid-19 the caravans in parks or lock-ups can’t get to sites across the UK and In many cases, they’re being asked to pay the full annual 'rent' - while others say they can't get a refund. These costs can be considerable - £4,000 to £5,000 seems to be the average.<ref>{{Cite news |date=7 Jun 2020 |title=My caravan holiday has been cancelled - so why can't I get a refund? Your rights |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/caravan-holiday-been-cancelled-cant-22143758 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624140622/https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/caravan-holiday-been-cancelled-cant-22143758 |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |work=[[The Mirror]]}}</ref>

<references />

The rights of residential and holiday mobile homeowners (England)

2025-11-06T10:54:23Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

The term ‘mobile home’ covers a variety of accommodation units, such as ‘caravan’, ‘park home’ or ‘lodge’, which are located on a site/park and can be transported from place to place but the caravan site the rights to tell you to leave when they want and it's even been recognized by Parliament<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=20 May 2025 |title=The rights of residential and holiday mobile homeowners (England) |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-rights-of-residential-and-holiday-mobile-homeowners-in-england/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624135150/https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-rights-of-residential-and-holiday-mobile-homeowners-in-england/ |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |website=House of Commons Library}}</ref>

The law distinguishes between a residential mobile home (in which the owner lives all year-round) and a mobile home which is used for holidays.

==Issue==

Caravan owners have certain rights regarding their caravan sites, including the right to a written statement of the agreement, protection from eviction without a court order, and the right to be informed about any changes in site fees. However, the level of protection can vary, as the static caravan industry in the UK is not fully regulated.

==Pitch fee==
You have to pay a ‘pitch fee’ to the park owner to rent the land your park home sits on as chosen by the site owner

The park owner can propose to change it once a year. They must give you 28 days’ notice in writing.You or the park owner can apply to a tribunal to decide the pitch fee if you cannot agree on as mentioned on Gov UK<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 Jun 2025 |title=Park (mobile) homes |url=https://www.gov.uk/park-mobile-homes/charges |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624135935/https://www.gov.uk/park-mobile-homes/charges |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

==Covid-19==
During Covid-19 the caravans in parks or lock-ups can’t get to sites across the UK and In many cases, they’re being asked to pay the full annual 'rent' - while others say they can't get a refund. These costs can be considerable - £4,000 to £5,000 seems to be the average as reported by The Mirror<ref>{{Cite news |date=7 Jun 2020 |title=My caravan holiday has been cancelled - so why can't I get a refund? Your rights |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/caravan-holiday-been-cancelled-cant-22143758 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250624140622/https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/caravan-holiday-been-cancelled-cant-22143758 |archive-date=24 Jun 2025 |access-date=24 Jun 2025 |work=[[The Mirror]]}}</ref>

<references />

Telstra

2025-11-06T10:53:20Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Telstra
| Type = Public
| Founded = 1975
| Industry = Telecommunications
| Official Website = https://telstra.com.au/
| Logo = Telstra.png
}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Telstra|Telstra Group Limited]]''' is Australia's largest telecommunications provider, offering a wide range of services including mobile, broadband, and fixed-line telephony to the Australian market. As of the latest data, Telstra supports approximately 22.5 million retail mobile services and 3.4 million fixed data services. <ref>Telstra - About Our Company - 2025-01-14: https://www.telstra.com.au/aboutus/our-company</ref><ref>Telstra Group Limited - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra</ref>

Since 28 October 2024, Telstra has focused exclusively on providing 4G LTE and 5G mobile services, having phased out its 2G and 3G networks. In the competitive Australian mobile network market, Telstra's main rivals include Optus, owned by Singtel, and TPG Telecom, which operates the Vodafone brand.

Originally established as a government-owned entity under the name Telecom Australia, Telstra underwent privatization and became a fully private company by 2006. It is currently listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) as a publicly traded company.

Telstra launched the 'Belong' brand in 2013 as a low-cost mobile and internet services provider and acquired Boost Mobile (Australia) in 2024.

Whilst Telstra's primary market is Australia, it has also moved into the international markets in Europe, Asia and the United States.

==Incidents==

===Putting customers under risk of being scammed/defrauded===
In 2024 Telstra was found by the ACMA to have not been authenticating customer IDs between August 2022 and April 2023 during 168,000 high-risk interactions such as password resets or SIM card swaps and has been fined $1.5 Million.<ref>ABC - ACMA found Telstra didn't have MFA for high-risk customer activities such as changing password after new rules were implemented in 2022 - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-17/telstra-fined-1-5m-for-leaving-customers-vulnerable-to-scams/104107146</ref>

Under ACMA rules that were introduced in 2022 required that all telcos in Australia to have implemented Multi-Factor ID authentication such as OTP to email/current phone number on file for high-risk changes to accounts.

The investigation found Telstra was not compliant with the new regulations and it identified about 7,000 instances involving customers in vulnerable circumstances.

A Telstra spokesperson at the time says they were "very supportive" of regulations focused on customer security, but said the 2022 regulations were significant in scope, "We had to design and deploy multi-factor authentication processes across all our channels," they continued, arguing the company missed the start date for the new regulations because it was making sure the processes worked properly.

ACMA did not find any direct evidence of losses from the breaches.

Telstra had agreed to a two-year undertaking with ACMA to take action on the breaches for future transactions, which is court enforceable if not followed.

===Locking purchased content behind new Fetch hardware and discontinuation bricking of Telstra TV devices.===
In 2024 Telstra contacted a customer to advise that they would no longer have access to their library of content unless they upgraded their 'Telstra TV Box Office' to a new Fetch device. This change in policy requires customer to purchase new hardware in order to access the content and media they have paid for. In this instance the customer was provided a new Fetch device for free, however at no time has Telstra offered all affected customers a free device and likely many customers either paid for new hardware or lost access to the content they had purchased. <ref>The Guardian - ‘My whole library is wiped out’: what it means to own movies and TV in the age of streaming services https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/may/14/my-whole-library-is-wiped-out-what-it-means-to-own-movies-and-tv-in-the-age-of-streaming-services</ref>

In addition to forcing customers to move to the new "Fetch" device and ecosystem, Telstra has [[Discontinuation bricking|bricked]] all previous "Telstra TV" devices<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Telstra TV Shutdown |url=https://www.telstra.com.au/entertainment/tv-movies/telstra-tv}}</ref>. The Telstra TV line of products were made in partnership with [[Roku]] and had the ability to stream and playback local content through the Roku Media Playback app or through Plex, and retailed at one point for $219AUD<ref>{{Cite web |first=Orion_2012 |title=Telstra TV3 - Review - Media Players |url=https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2789846}}</ref>. While sales figures for these devices may not be public, this decision has officially turned all of these capable devices into e-waste for which Telstra suggests recycling them at your local Telstra store.<ref name=":0" />

Under Telstra's terms of service it specifies that the content purchased is 'your content' and specifies that you can 'buy' or 'purchase' the content, however Telstra still reserves the right to take access away from the content under various circumstances. This could be misunderstood by customers to believe that they own something they paid for that is actually closer to a lease or rental arrangement.

===Repeated overcharging customers for inactive services===
In 2020 it was identified that Telstra had charged more than 10,000 customers for services that weren't active. It is estimated that Telstra overcharged almost $2.5 Million over a 12 year period. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) formally directed Telstra to comply with the Telecommunications Act in September 2020.<ref>ACMA - Telstra direction (''November 2020'') - https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2020-11/report/telstra-direction-november-2020</ref>

A subsequent investigation occurred in 2022 and identified that Telstra had overcharged more than 11000 customers approximately $1.7 million. ACMA ordered Telstra to pay a $3 Million penalty in addition to refunding affected customers $21.1 Million<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 Dec 2023 |title=Telstra pays $24 million in penalties and refunds after wrongly charging customers |url=https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2023-12/telstra-pays-24-million-penalties-and-refunds-after-wrongly-charging-customers}}</ref>

===Reducing speeds on Belong NBN plans===
In November 2020 Telstra migrated 8,897 customers from a 100Mbps plan to a 40Mbps plan without notifying them. There was no price change for these customers even though Telstra saved $7 per customer per month for the newer lower speed service. Telstra was forced to pay $15 Million in penalties after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) instituted proceedings in the Federal Court.<ref>ACCC - Telstra found to have misled nearly 9,000 Belong customers over broadband speed claims - https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/telstra-found-to-have-misled-nearly-9000-belong-customers-over-broadband-speed-claims</ref>

===Selling mobile contracts to customers who cannot afford them===
Between January 2016 and August 2018 representatives at Telstra stores sold unaffordable contracts to 108 Indigenous customers. Sales staff manipulated credit assessments, misrepresented products as free and exploited language barriers. In 2020 the ACCC instituted Federal Court proceedings against Telstra for unconscionable conduct and the Federal Court ordered Telstra to pay $50 Million in penalties. <ref>ACCC - Telstra to pay $50m penalty for unconscionable sales to Indigenous consumers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/telstra-to-pay-50m-penalty-for-unconscionable-sales-to-indigenous-consumers</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Telstra Group Limited]]

Storj.io constantly removes free or low cost services

2025-11-06T10:50:58Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{StubNotice}}

In February 2024, Storj announced the discontinuation of its Free Tier, effective April 1, 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 Feb 2024 |title=Discontinuation of the Storj Free Tier |url=https://forum.storj.io/t/discontinuation-of-the-storj-free-tier/25332?utm_source=chatgpt.com |url-status=live}}</ref> This change required all users to transition to paid Pro accounts to continue using the service. Users who did not upgrade by the deadline had their accounts frozen, restricting access to their data until a payment method was added. The decision was driven by concerns over the Free Tier's effectiveness in customer acquisition and instances of abuse. While some users expressed dissatisfaction with the abrupt transition and communication, Storj maintained that the change was necessary for the platform's sustainability.

In May 2025, Storj announced a new pricing policy introducing a '''$5/month minimum fee''' for all users, regardless of actual usage.<ref>{{Cite web |title=New Minimum Usage Fee Starting July 1 |url=https://forum.storj.io/t/new-minimum-usage-fee-starting-july-1/30057 |url-status=live}}</ref> This change was part of a broader effort to streamline operations and ensure financial sustainability. However, the policy faced significant backlash from the community, particularly from users who held and used STORJ tokens for payments.

'''In response to community concern''', several Storj team members clarified aspects of the pricing and support policies on the official forum. A representative noted that '''enterprise clients could still receive free trial credits''' through case-by-case negotiations with the sales team to support proof-of-concept evaluations. Another pointed out that '''withdrawals from prepaid STORJ token balances''' do not incur payment processing fees. Notably, a Storj team lead added—somewhat curtly—that '''“accounting and support teams do not work free of charge,”''' a remark that was perceived by some in the community as dismissive and unprofessional, especially amid a tense and nuanced pricing debate.

In response to the feedback, a representative from Storj has claimed that the company would revise the approach and an announcement has been posted to their community portal.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Follow-up on the New Minimum Usage Fee - and a Request for Feedback |url=https://forum.storj.io/t/a-follow-up-on-the-new-minimum-usage-fee-and-a-request-for-feedback/30089}}</ref>{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Storj.io
| Type =Private
| Founded =2014
| Industry =Decentralized Cloud Storage
| Official Website =https://www.storj.io/
| Logo =Storjlogo.svg
}}{{Placeholder box|An introductory paragraph starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a ...<ref name":0">ref goes here</ref>". When writing the article, insert text in the space below this box, and then delete this tip box (and the other tip boxes below). In the visual editor, just click on a box and press backspace to delete it. In the source editor, simply delete the double curly brackets, and the text inside them.}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Placeholder box|Overview of concerns that arise from the company's conduct regarding (if applicable):
* User freedom
* User privacy
* Business model
* Market control}}

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Example incident one (''date'')===
{{Main|link to the main article}}
Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
===Example incident two (''date'')===
...

==Products==
{{Placeholder box|This is a list of the company's product lines '''with articles on this wiki'''.
* [[Example product line one]] (release date): Short summary of the product's incidents.
* [[Example product line two]] (release date):}}

==See also==
{{Placeholder box|Link to relevant theme articles or companies with similar incidents.}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Roblox

2025-11-06T10:48:26Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed some site errors

{{Incomplete}}{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Roblox
| Type = Company
| Founded = 2004
| Industry = Gaming
| Official Website = https://roblox.com/
| Logo = Roblox.svg
}}

[[wikipedia:Roblox|'''Roblox''']] is an online platform which lets users create their own games, as well as all sorts of virtual items for their personal avatars. The platform is owned by the Roblox Corporation.

Users create games through Roblox Studio, an application separate from the Roblox Player. Roblox Studio can be used by a user to create digital backups of the games they create. These backups are stored on their hard drive and can not be altered by the Roblox Corporation.

==Consumer impact summary==
{{Incomplete section}}

*User freedom: Documented in section 11 of the Roblox Terms of Use,<ref>https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004647846-Roblox-Terms-of-Use#dispute-resolution-user-roblox</ref> the user agrees to resolve disputes through Mandatory Informal Dispute Resolution (MIDR).<ref>https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004647846-Roblox-Terms-of-Use#dispute-resolution-user-roblox</ref> If MIDR does not resolve a dispute, users within the United States are forced to proceed under [[Forced arbitration|binding arbitration]]. In order to initiate MIDR, users are required to send a physically-written notice by certified mail or through Federal Express.
*User privacy: All operations related to Roblox must, to some extent, occur on servers that Roblox owns. For example, it is nearly impossible to play a Roblox game without interacting with the Roblox servers. Roblox servers are not end to end encrypted, allowing possible vulnerabilities. Roblox explicitly states that they monitor all user activity to see if it complies with their rules.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Restricted Content Policy |url=https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004630823-Roblox-Privacy-and-Cookie-Policy#posting-content |url-status=live |access-date=12 Aug 2025 |website=Roblox |at=Posting content}}</ref>
*Business model: Roblox profits off of an exclusive currency purchased with real-world currency called ''Robux'', and it is often used an an intermediary for microtransactions on the platform for user-generated content (UGC) such as cosmetics. Roblox is known to also make money off of collaborations that function as advertisements, such as with IKEA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=Jun 3, 2024 |title=IKEA is opening a new store on Roblox… and you could be paid to work there! |url=https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/newsroom/corporate-news/ikea-is-opening-a-new-store-on-roblox-pub8a9272d0/ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=Ikea}}</ref>
*Market competition: Various platforms such as [[Epic Games]]' [[Fortnite]] have been known to emulate how Roblox works. Very few however, are successful in competing against them.
*Other information: The Roblox Corporation can terminate (delete) a user's account as long as they believe they are violating the Terms of Use.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=Last updated 25 Jul 2025 |title=Roblox Terms of Use |url=https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004647846-Roblox-Terms-of-Use |url-status=live |access-date=12 Aug 2025 |website=Roblox |page=Section 2}}</ref> Termination can not be revoked.<ref name=":1" /> A terminated user will lose all content they own on Roblox along with their account, including what they purchased with Robux.<ref name=":1" />

==Monetization==
Roblox is a free service which features in-game purchases made with Robux, e.g. new accessories, exclusive content in certain games, and the ability to access certain games. All items purchased on Roblox are stored on Roblox servers alone, so Roblox has the ability to modify or delete the items you own.

On September 9, 2021, Roblox launched an automated process for users to receive Robux back for items they had bought which had been deleted or otherwise moderated <ref>https://www.roblox.com/modcreditagreement/974158ba-99f0-4915-8fde-5b07b3cbbe09</ref> . Until then, there was no refund method in place.

==Incidents==

===Inappropriate Content===
Throughout the 2020s, Roblox has faced several controversies regarding child safety, including a lawsuit in 2020 over how the platform had allowed two adults to harass a 10-year-old girl, causing her mental health to deteriorate so badly that she resorted to suicide, according to her parents' testimony.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dorsey |first=Edwin |date=2025-08-15 |title=This list is the tip of the iceberg. So many cases go unreported, undetected, or contribute to the deaths of children. Below is one lawsuit in which a 10-year-old girl claimed abuse through Roblox. |url=https://x.com/StockJabber/status/1956415609345851567 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Twitter}}</ref>

On 14th August 2025, Louisana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit against Roblox<ref>{{Cite web |last=Murrill |first=Elizabeth |date=2025-08-14 |title=Attorney General Liz Murrill on X |url=https://x.com/AGLizMurrill/status/1956081394083409932 |url-status=live |website=X}}</ref>, alleging child exploitation and the platforming of sexual predators on the platform. Roblox themselves released an official response to the lawsuit on 15th August 2025.

===Accusations of child labor===

In January 2022, ''The Guardian'' published a story accusing Roblox of profiting off child labor with detailed stories of teenagers being scammed and becoming victims of sexual grooming in communities conveniently off the platform.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/games/2022/jan/09/the-trouble-with-roblox-the-video-game-empire-built-on-child-labour</ref> In October 2022, the first of many lawsuits alleging Roblox enabled a girl's sexual exploitation was filed.<ref>https://www.reuters.com/legal/game-company-roblox-enabled-girls-sexual-exploitation-lawsuit-claims-2022-10-05/</ref>

On the 24th of August 2025 the youtube channel People Make Games published a video about Roblox's treatment of children. One of the points in the video is about how Roblox developers own a currency called "Robux" that resembles a new form of [[wikipedia:Company_scrip|Company Scrip]], a currency that is exclusively earned and exchanged in the company. Exchanging it back into a real currency will result in less payment overall, encouraging the use of it inside the company. The currency was made illegal in 1938.

===Blocking Linux users===
In April 2023, Roblox intentionally blocked Linux users playing the game via Wine, a tool used for running Windows apps on POSIX-compliant operating systems, they cite "security and compatibility concerns."<ref>{{Cite web |title= Devforum Post by MrEaker of Roblox |url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/the-new-roblox-64-bit-byfron-client-forbids-wine-users-from-using-it-most-likely-unintentional/2305528/2}}</ref> This announcement followed Roblox's acquisition of Byfron, as well as their developments towards a 64-bit Roblox client.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Devforum Post by Roblox Announcing Byfron Acquisition|url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/welcoming-byfron-to-roblox/2018233}}</ref> Despite this change to the client, users were still able to access Roblox Studio, the development application, utilizing Wine.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Devforum Post by Bitdancer regarding Studio|url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/the-new-roblox-64-bit-byfron-client-forbids-wine-users-from-using-it-most-likely-unintentional/2305528/34}}</ref> In August 2023, an update to Roblox once again allowed users to run Roblox via Wine, and many users opted to use a fork of Wine titled Vinegar made specifically for Roblox.<ref>{{Cite web |title= Devforum Post Discussing Roblox on Linux |url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/vinegar-the-better-way-to-run-roblox-on-linux/2224394/24}}</ref> In February of 2024, Roblox would go back on their decision and ban the use of Wine for the Roblox Client, citing extended use of Wine-based exploits, Roblox Studio remains available under wine.<ref>{{Cite web |title= VinegarHQ 2024 Roblox on Linux Block FAQ |url=https://vinegarhq.org/Home/rol_faq.html}}</ref> In August 2024, the Vinegar team would release Sober, a closed-source application utilizing a translation layer to access the Roblox client via a mobile Android package kit (APK).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sober - Roblox on Linux |url=https://sober.vinegarhq.org/ |access-date=12 Aug 2025}}</ref> In April 2025, Roblox engineer Bitdancer would state on the Roblox Devforums that they see no reason to block Sober, but that they may disable it as a side effect of changes in security. <ref>{{Cite web|title=Devforum Post by Bitdancer regarding Sober|url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/roblox-security-changes-break-nvidia-ansel-vulkan-layer-support/3601172/40}}</ref>

===Problematic moderation===
{{Main|Roblox's problematic moderation}}
Roblox as a platform has been known by consumers to moderate content in ways that are inconsistent. The platform's chat moderation feature censors inoffensive speech,<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/Gregheffley95 |date=Feb 26, 2021 |title=Roblox censors almost everything |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/roblox/comments/lsxpex/roblox_censors_almost_everything/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230619214011/https://old.reddit.com/r/roblox/comments/lsxpex/roblox_censors_almost_everything/ |archive-date=Jun 19, 2023 |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> including numbers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=Mar 7, 2017 |title=Why the hell are numbers censored! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/roblox/comments/5y0w3z/why_the_hell_are_numbers_censored/ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]] - r/Roblox}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=JParty |date=Feb 24, 2017 |title=Updates to Chat Privacy API + New Account Indicators + Changes to Text Filtering APIs |url=https://devforum.roblox.com/t/updates-to-chat-privacy-api-new-account-indicators-changes-to-text-filtering-apis/33867 |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=Roblox Dev Forum}}</ref>

In recent years, moderation has been documented to neglect handling child predators, only handling the most egregious of actors after massive consumer backlash<ref>{{Cite news |last=Olivia |first=Carville |last2=D’Anastasio |first2=Cecilia |date=Jul 22, 2024 |title=Roblox’s Pedophile Problem |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-roblox-pedophile-problem/ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |work=Bloomberg}}</ref> or lawsuits,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tanenbaum |first=Michael |date=Feb 25, 2025 |title=Family from N.J. sues Roblox and Discord, claiming platforms are 'hunting ground' for child predators |url=https://www.phillyvoice.com/new-jersey-familys-suit-alleges-roblox-discord-are-hunting-ground-child-predators/ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |work=Philly Voice}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=Aug 8, 2025 |title=‘Breeding ground for predators’: Roblox sued by DeKalb 10-year-old’s family |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/breeding-ground-predators-roblox-sued-150622871.html |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |work=WSBTV 2 Atlanta}}</ref> and in many cases, these individuals tend to have their bans reversed.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Schlep |date=Aug 9, 2025 |title=Roblox Is Threatening to Sue Me For Protecting Kids |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMqAw_NjHK8&t |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> Additionally, the platform has been documented to host various mature experiences,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schlep |date=Jan 9, 2024 |title=this simulator should NOT be on roblox... |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMdacOJxmjU |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Schlep |date=Apr 14, 2024 |title=Roblox Needs to BAN These Games... |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3FeYfJOhw |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> which have been recorded to be used as breeding grounds for predatory behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schlep |date=Feb 7, 2024 |title=I Caught a Roblox PREDATOR in this game... |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQMSc-9jGMQ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> This neglect has gone so far as to the platform threatening litigation against individuals attempting to get child predators reported to authorities.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Huang |first=Marcus |date=Aug 9, 2025 |title=Roblox YouTuber Battles Child Predators {{!}} Accounts Terminated Amid Backlash |url=https://leveluptalk.com/news/roblox-youtuber-fights-child-predators-banned/ |access-date=Aug 10, 2025 |work=Level Up Talk}}</ref>

According to Ruben Sim, the Roblox report system (which allows users to 'report' rule-violating behavior to Roblox moderators) often had a success rate of 0%, even when obviously rule-violating accounts possessing usernames which were distorted versions of minor-sexualizing phrases such as "14 year old slut".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sim |first=Ruben |date=22 Dec 2023 |title=Do Roblox Reports Really Work? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-s0sLZ4oJA&ab_channel=RubenSim |url-status=live |access-date=12 Aug 2025 |website=Youtube |type=Video}}</ref>

====Condo Games====
"Condo" games on Roblox are a type of game which simulates sex between Roblox avatars. According to the policies on Romantic and Sexual Content, "Any content which explicitly [depicts] sexual content or nudity is against the rules of Roblox".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Restricted Content Policy |url=https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/15869919570708-Restricted-Content-Policy |url-status=live |access-date=12 Aug 2025 |website=Roblox |at=Romantic and Sexual Content}}</ref> Due to the rule-violating nature of these games and how they can harm the fanbase of Roblox, due to the fanbase of Roblox being overwhelmingly composed of young children''[citation needed]'', they are often removed by Roblox moderation.

However, due to the potentially backup-creating nature of Roblox Studio, creators of these Condo games can endlessly republish these offending games under alternate accounts as long as they keep the backup file. While Roblox is considering the creation of "Restricted" experiences which may allow these heavier sexual themes''[citation needed]'', Condo games almost never mark themselves as restricted, allowing underage users to potentially access them.

===Predator-hunting groups===
In 9th August, 2025, Roblox issued a Cease and Desist to Roblox predator hunting channel RealSchlep<ref>{{Cite web |first=RealSchlep |date=9 Aug 2025 |title=Schlep on X posting about his Cease and Desist |url=https://x.com/RealSchlep/status/1954255952997478537 |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=X}}</ref>. "Schlep used the method of acting like an underage person (decoy) to catch bad actors on Roblox. Using this method he got 6 arrests according to his team using Roblox until they issued a Cease and Desist. Roblox added a rule to their Terms of Use<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaufman |first=Matt |date=13 Aug 2025 |title=Roblox on vigilante groups |url=https://corp.roblox.com/newsroom/2025/08/more-on-removal-of-vigilantes-from-roblox |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=Roblox}}</ref>. Roblox is reassuring their playerbase that the groups do not use the proper channels that Roblox provides to report potential criminals. This sparked even more backlash for the already problematic moderation system, leaving players and parents in doubt if Roblox is even a safe environment for children.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-11-06T10:39:53Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Needs the rebuttal included|Issue 2=Needs more "wiki voice" commentary on each claim}}
In 2025, Proven Industries, a lock company, is attempting to sue Trevor McNally,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last= |date=May 1, 2025 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.1.0.pdf |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> a lockpicking expert on multiple social media platforms, for various questionable damages caused by the publishing of a currently delisted video demonstrating McNally picking the lock with a makeshift shim.
==Background==
In March 2025, Proven Industries published a video on Instagram, featuring their Latch Pin Lock<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Proven Industries > Latch Pin Lock |url=https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211010616/https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |archive-date=2025-02-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Proven Industries}}</ref> and a Proven Industries staff member using a number of tools on the lock and stating that there was no way for anyone to bypass the lock. In the comments of that video a user by the name of gq_videos said "Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke" someone at Proven Industries responded to that comment by posting: "lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast".<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=DEFENDANT TREVOR MCNALLY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250611182806/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

On April 2025, Trevor McNally published a response video on [[YouTube]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's YouTube video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzlmKz_MM8 |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> [[TikTok]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's TikTok post |url=https://www.tiktok.com/@mcnallyofficial/video/7489223700735118622 |url-status=live |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[TikTok]]}}</ref> [[Facebook]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Facebook video |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZicXjkyNb/ |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Facebook]]}}</ref> and [[Instagram]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Instagram post |url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DIAH9vps19y/?hl=en |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref> intended to both educate and entertain users on the insecurity of the lock via the usage of a makeshift shim created out of a soda can. In response to McNally's video, Proven Industries submitted takedown requests of the videos on all of these platforms, and then soon after filed a lawsuit against McNally.<ref name=":0" /> As of October 2025, at least one of these videos are back online.

Proven Industries posted a response video to McNally, called "Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market!" They did not name McNally, but the same staff member in their original video drank from a can of Liquid Death (the same drink McNally had used to create a lock shim).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market! |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/16nZqtT-1sI |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>However, they changed their strategy in June and asked the judge in the legal case to issue an emergency injunction to ban Trevor McNally from making any content about Proven Industries while the court case was progressing.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 10: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250603165753/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |archive-date=2025-06-03 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
[[File:McNally Takedown.png|thumb|A screenshot taken from a taken down [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 McNally video] displaying Proven Industries' copyright claim over the video]]
==Lawsuit==

===Claims===
#Copyright infringement Cited multiple times inside of the legal document,<ref name=":0" /> Proven Industries attempts to claim that McNally was not following fair use doctrine for the purposes of his video. Notably due to the takedown of McNally's content, Proven instead uses screenshots to demonstrate theft, seen in sections 27 and 29 of the document.
#Defamation
#False advertising Proven Industries claims that McNally falsely advertised the ease in bypassing the lock in sections 32-35,<ref name=":0" /> and directly claimed that McNally was acting childish to support these claims. Additionally in sections 36-40, Proven claims that McNally was doctoring the footage, as the shim was shown deformed through the video, despite how aluminum is capable of being easily deformed under stress.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Runkle Of The Bailey |date=Jun 5, 2025 |title=When Your Lock Is Bad, Sue? Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) This claim was made despite the defendant living in Virginia.
#Torturous interference
#Unjust enrichment Covered in section 4 in the introduction:<blockquote>On information and belief, McNally is affiliated with and/or an agent of Covert Instruments (hereinafter "Covert"), a company that sells lock-picking tools. McNally lists Covert's website on his social media pages, and Covert Instruments' website features McNally and benefits from the misleading content McNally produces.</blockquote>This claim has been cited as questionable by consumers<ref name=":1" /> and the media considering the fact that the shim was made from an ordinary object rather than any product sold on the website.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=May 23, 2025 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQp5JcQwLA |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Civil conspiracy
#Trade libel

Additionally, Proven attempted to file an emergency injunction against McNally<ref>{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=Jun 2, 2025 |title=Preliminary Injunction |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> to prevent further posting about the flaws of their locks, called for within this injunction was emergency relief for damages that exclude engineering costs to resolve the lock's vulnerability, meaning if Proven Industries is to win this case, the company will neglect to resolve the flaws of the lock itself.

===Rebuttal===
#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=2025-03-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" />
#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" />
#The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" />
#McNally's use of extracts from Proven Industries video had no effect on Proven Industries, as there is no market for their video and people watching his video would not take away views of their video.<ref name=":3" />
#The defamation claims of Proven Industries would fail, as they were based on claims made against non-verbal acts, where Proven Industries didn't actually have any written statements to back up their claims that McNally was making false claims in his response video. (Essentially McNally never actually said Proven Industries was "dishonest or incompetent" and also never said their lock was "inherently untrustworthy.") McNally made a further video called "They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks" as a response to the claim that he had to disassemble the lock to create a bespoke shim and then reassemble it. In that video, he took a case of Liquid Death and opened an Amazon Locker and removed a boxed new Proven Industries Latch Pin Lock, drank the drink, cut up the can, created a shim and talked though how the shim process works.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=2025-08-31 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbQp5JcQwLA |website=YouTube}}</ref>
#Proven Industries's tortious interference claims were invalid.<ref name=":3" />
#Public interest always favours supporting First Amendment rights.<ref name=":3" />
===Outcome===
#Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
#There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:
##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']
##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']
##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']
#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']
#Proven Industries filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case without prejudice. The copyright strikes against Trevor McNally have been lifted.

The Latch Pin Lock with the vulnerability to shim attacks is still on sale and no product recall has yet been issued.

In the aftermath of the case another lock company, called PacLock launched a legal case against Proven Industry, claiming that Ronald Lee, II of Proven Industries had committed perjury, due to Proven Industries making heavy use of the term "made in the USA" in their advertising material and then Ronald Lee, II admitting in the McNally case that they import large numbers of lock cylinders from outside the USA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Pacific Lock Company v. Proven Industries, Inc. (8:25-cv-01887) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901010301/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |archive-date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
==Consumer response==
Coverage on these legal proceedings from media outlets appear to look down upon Proven Industries' attempts to sue McNally.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Toohey |first=Ellsworth |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=Lock manufacturer files lawsuit against social media lock picker |url=https://boingboing.net/2025/06/03/lock-manufacturer-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-lock-picker.html |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Erik |date=Jun 7, 2025 |title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support |url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Good}}</ref>

From consumers, notably legal professional Runkle of the Bailey,<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Runkle of the Bailey |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Proven Takes An Early Loss In Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE}}</ref> call out the questionable nature of each claim within the legal document.<ref name=":0" /> From the subreddit r/LockPickingLawyer, many users back McNally's response towards Proven.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/habichuelacondulce |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=To stop a YouTuber exposing the padlock security flaw with lawsuit |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/LockPickingLawyer/comments/1l2o3tp/to_stop_a_youtuber_exposing_the_padlock_security/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

Trevor McNally's personal response from the legal proceedings started with a short and hastily shot short clip to disprove most claims shown in the document by picking the lock mere seconds after obtaining the lock.<ref name=":2" /> This has continued into a series of clips demonstrating other locks sold by Proven Industries being bypassed by McNally.
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Proven Industries]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Nintendo Switch Online

2025-11-06T10:36:56Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{Stub}}

Nintendo Switch Online (or NSO for short), is a paid online gaming subscription service for the [[Nintendo Switch]] and [[Nintendo Switch|Nintendo Switch 2]],<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Nintendo Switch Online — Overview |url=https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Nintendo-Switch-Online/Nintendo-Switch-Online-Overview-1183143.html}}</ref> similar to [[PlayStation Network]] on the [[PlayStation]] consoles and [[Xbox Live]] on [[Xbox]] consoles. It was introduced in September of 2018<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-09-12 |title="The Nintendo Switch online service is launching on September 18th" |url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17850516/nintendo-switch-online-service-release-date |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109033627/https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17850516/nintendo-switch-online-service-release-date |archive-date=2020-11-09 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=The Verge}}</ref>, roughly a year after the Nintendo Switch's launch. At which time, games that used to have their online multiplayer functions accessible for free were locked behind this subscription service.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-06-02 |title="Nintendo Switch online service pushed back to 2018 |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-switch-online-service-to-launch-in-2018 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124013853/https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-02-nintendo-switch-online-service-to-launch-in-2018 |archive-date=2020-11-24 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=gamesindustry.biz}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What online games can you play without switch online? |url=https://www.gameslearningsociety.org/wiki/what-online-games-can-you-play-without-switch-online/}}</ref> The service also includes access to other things such as saving to the cloud, Nintendo Music, GameChat (Nintendo's new voice chat system introduced with the Nintendo Switch 2<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-19 |title=Nintendo Switch 2 Gamechat |url=https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/features/gamechat/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250819130515/https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/features/gamechat/ |archive-date=2025-08-19 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=Nintendo}}</ref>), and playing older Nintendo games from the NES/Famicom, SNES/Super Famicom, and Game Boy.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-19 |title=Compare Nintendo Switch Online Memberships |url=https://www.nintendo.com/us/online/compare-memberships/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250819125044/https://www.nintendo.com/us/online/compare-memberships/ |archive-date=2025-08-19 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=Nintendo}}</ref>

Nintendo offers the base subscription pack at either a free 7-day trial, once monthly (3.99), once every 3 months (7.99), or once ever year (19.99). Nintendo also offers a Family subscription pack exclusively yearly for $34.99.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Memberships {{!}} Nintendo Switch Online |url=https://ec.nintendo.com/US/en/membership/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250729043936/https://ec.nintendo.com/US/en/membership/ |archive-date=2025-07-29 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=Nintendo}}</ref> The family pack allows for up to 8 accounts to be connected on one plan.<ref name=":1" /> (More research needed on why the expansion pack and family subscription packs are only available yearly)

Some users have been banned from all online services, including Nintendo Switch Online after hacking their consoles.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Petite |first=Steven |date=May 22, 2018 |title=Nintendo starts banning Switch hackers from online services |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nintendo-starts-banning-switch-hackers/ |access-date=August 16, 2025 |work=digitaltrends}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Doolan |first=Liam |date=June 17, 2025 |title=Nintendo Reportedly Banning Switch 2's Using MIG Cartridges |url=https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2025/06/nintendo-reportedly-banning-switch-2s-using-mig-cartridges?s=09 |work=Nintendo Life}}</ref>

==Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack==
Unlike the base subscription Nintendo prices the NSO+EP exclusively as a yearly subscription for $49.99 (individual) or at 79.99 (Family). The expansion pack offers additional services such as Nintendo Switch 2 Upgrade Packs for games, DLC, and access to games from older consoles such as the GameCube, N64, Game Boy Advance, and Sega Genesis/Mega Drive.<ref name=":1" />

==Consumer impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

===Nintendo Classics subscription requirement===
Nintendo Classics is the product line in which NSO subscribers gain access to games from older consoles via software emulation. Subscribers can download applications pertaining to a particular console's library, and thereby gain access to the games for that console which Nintendo has approved for the service. While the games are installed locally, the selection of games available can be changed any time by Nintendo. The selection of games has expanded over time, but in some instances, games were taken off the service.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-28 |title=Nintendo of Japan announces title will be removed from NSO library, first time since launch |url=https://nintendowire.com/news/2025/02/28/nintendo-of-japan-announces-title-will-be-removed-from-nso-library-first-time-since-launch/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250228182428/https://nintendowire.com/news/2025/02/28/nintendo-of-japan-announces-title-will-be-removed-from-nso-library-first-time-since-launch/ |archive-date=2025-02-28 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=nintendowire.com}}</ref>

This is in stark contrast to the 'Virtual Console' service Nintendo offered for their Wii, Wii U, and 3DS consoles previously, in which individual titles were available for a one-time purchase and digital download.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Subscription-based services]]
[[Category:Nintendo Switch Online]]

Nintendo

2025-11-06T10:35:15Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Nintendo
| Type = Public
| Founded = 1889
| Industry = Electronics, Entertainment Software
| Official Website = https://nintendo.com/
| Logo = Nintendo.png
}}

Founded in 1889, '''[[Wikipedia:Nintendo|Nintendo Co., Ltd.]]''' is a multi-billion-dollar video game company headquartered in Kyoto, Japan with multiple subdivisions outside of Japan. They manufacture video game consoles and handhelds, the most recent of which being the [[Nintendo Switch|Switch 2]]. Some of their best-known systems include the Wii, Nintendo 64, [[Nintendo Switch|Switch]], GameCube, and Game Boy. They are well-known for various popular video game franchises, such as ''Super Mario'', ''The Legend of Zelda'', ''Pokémon'', and ''Metroid''.

==Consumer-impact summary==

*'''User freedom:''' Extensive history against hardware and software modification; currently disables online functionality completely on modded consoles, which can, in some cases, effectively brick a system.
*'''User privacy:''' Historically has ignored individual consumers; confirmed to be spying on [[Nintendo Switch|Nintendo Switch 2]] hardware [[Nintendo Switch bans|to detect modifications]].
*'''Business model:''' Hardware sales, software sales, more recently subscriptions such as [[Nintendo Switch Online]] and microtransactions.
*'''Market competition:''' Limited home console competition from [[Sony]] and [[Xbox]]; limited portable console competition coming from emulation handhelds and [[Valve]]'s ''Steam Deck''.

==Controversial Practices==
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:Nintendo|Nintendo category]].

===History against console emulation===
United States Copyright Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 effectively states that making a copy of a computer program that you still own the original copy of (e.g., a video game, like Super Smash Bros. Melee) is legal if copying it is necessary in order to use the program with a machine (e.g., the Dolphin emulator) and that it isn't used in any other way, or to archive the program<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Chapter 1: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright, Section 117 |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html |url-status=live |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref>. Emulation is also legal in this context, as proven by ''Sony v. Connectix''<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 May 2025 |title=Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. |url=https://casetext.com/case/sony-computer-entertainment-v-connectix-corp-2 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250331104619/https://casetext.com/case/sony-computer-entertainment-v-connectix-corp-2 |archive-date=31 Mar 2025 |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=CaseText}}</ref> and ''Sony v. Bleem''<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 Apr 2023 |title=Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Bleem, LLC |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America,_Inc._v._Bleem,_LLC |url-status=live |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=Wikisource}}</ref>. Despite this precedent, however, Nintendo is well-known for their extensive history of combating emulation of their games and hardware.

====Examples:====

*In 1999, Nintendo sued Nintendo 64 emulator UltraHLE.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@Hemos |date=12 Feb 1999 |title=Nintendo Confirms It Will Sue UltraHLE Creators 96 |url=https://games.slashdot.org/story/99/02/12/0943207/nintendo-confirms-it-will-sue-ultrahle-creators |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=games.slashdot.org}} </ref>
*On November 19th, 2020, The Big House, a Super Smash Bros. Melee and Ultimate tournament, announced that Nintendo had sent them a cease and desist because of their use of a Super Smash Bros. Melee modification that required the use of a GameCube and Wii emulator known as Dolphin.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=20 Nov 2020 |title=Nintendo shuts down Super Smash Bros. tournament for using mods to play online |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/20/21579392/nintendo-big-house-super-smash-bros-melee-tournament-slippi-cease-desist |url-status=live |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=@TheBigHouseSSB |date=19 Nov 2020 |title=The Big House on X (Twitter) |url=https://twitter.com/TheBigHouseSSB/status/1329521081577857036 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127080201/https://twitter.com/TheBigHouseSSB/status/1329521081577857036 |archive-date=27 Nov 2020 |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=X (Twitter)}}</ref> This led them to have to cancel the tournament. ''Full section: [https://consumerrights.wiki/Nintendo#The_Big_House_Online_Tournament_(2020) The Big House Online Tournament (2020)]''
*In 2024, Nintendo took down [[Nintendo Switch]] emulator Yuzu, as well as the Nintendo 3DS emulator Citra.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ford |first=Joseph |date=11 Apr 2024 |title=Ninten-don’t: Breaking Down the Yuzu Emulator Lawsuit |url=https://www.romanolaw.com/ninten-dont-breaking-down-the-yuzu-emulator-lawsuit/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=www.romanolaw.com}} </ref>
*Nintendo has also pressured for restrictions to access emulators, such as Dolphin's non-inclusion as a core for the [[Steam]] version of RetroArch.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Jul 2023 |title=What Happened to Dolphin on Steam? |url=https://it.dolphin-emu.org/blog/2023/07/20/what-happened-to-dolphin-on-steam/?cr=it |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=it.dolphin-emu.org}}</ref>

===History against hardware modification===
<blockquote>''Further Reading: [[Game Genie lawsuit]], [[Le Hoang Minh lawsuit]], [[Team Xecuter and Gary Bowser lawsuit]], [[ModdedHardware lawsuit]], [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates]]'' 

''See also: [https://consumerrights.wiki/Nintendo#Controversial_agreements_and_policies Controversial agreements and policies]''</blockquote>Nintendo is known to frequently get into legal altercations with the creators of hardware modifications.

====Examples:====

*Nintendo has sued the creators of cheat code devices, such as the Game Genie<ref>{{Cite web |last=Johnson |first=Eric E. |date=31 Dec 2007 |title=Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 964 F. 2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) |url=https://www.museumofintellectualproperty.org/features/game_genie.html |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=www.museumofintellectualproperty.org}}</ref> and 10NES circumvention<ref>{{Cite web |date=1992 |title=Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc |url=https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/atari-nintendo-fedcir1992.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=www.copyright.gov}}</ref> which allowed users to enter cheat codes into their games and bypass the security lockout chip to prevent [[piracy]].

*On November 18th, 2020, Nintendo of America sued Le Hoang Minh for selling RCM Loaders (plug in USB devices allowing unsigned/homebrew software to run on a Nintendo Switch), accusing him of selling piracy devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Nicole |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Nintendo sues more hack sellers, ‘a worsening international problem’ |url=https://www.polygon.com/2020/11/18/21574488/nintendo-rcm-loader-jailbreak-lawsuit-switch |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126071118/https://www.polygon.com/2020/11/18/21574488/nintendo-rcm-loader-jailbreak-lawsuit-switch |archive-date=26 Nov 2020 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Polygon}}</ref>
*On April 16th, 2021, Nintendo of America sued Gary Bowser, head of video game modchip development and sales group Team Xecuter for over $150,000, accusing him of selling piracy devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Nicole |date=17 Apr 2021 |title=Nintendo suing Bowser over Switch hacks |url=https://www.polygon.com/22388720/nintendo-bowser-lawsuit-team-xecuter |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417151420/https://www.polygon.com/22388720/nintendo-bowser-lawsuit-team-xecuter |archive-date=17 Apr 2021 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Polygon}}</ref>In a subsequent criminal case, Bowser plead guilty to conspiracy to circumvent technological measures and received a 40 month sentence in prison.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-10 |title=Public voice and principal salesperson for notorious videogame piracy group sentenced to 3+ years in prison for conspiracy |url=https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/public-voice-and-principal-salesperson-notorious-videogame-piracy-group-sentenced-3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/ob2eg#selection-395.5-395.10 |archive-date=2022-02-11 |publisher=The United States Attorney's Office}}</ref> He was released after serving 14 months and reported to be destitute and struggling to pay rent as he owes Nintendo $14 million dollars.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hernandez |first=Patricia |date=2024-02-01 |title=The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case |url=https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/feb/01/the-man-who-owes-nintendo-14m-gary-bowser-and-gamings-most-infamous-piracy-case |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/eZPwz |archive-date=2024-02-03 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>
*On June 28th, 2024, Nintendo sued modded game seller ModdedHardware for selling [[Nintendo Switch]] flashcarts, modded [[Nintendo Switch]] consoles, and a mail-in console modding service with the argument being raised that a modded system is capable of running pirated software alongside allegations of ModdedHardware pre-installing pirated games, despite citing no evidence in the legal document.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Van der Sar |first=Ernesto |date=1 Jul 2024 |title=Nintendo Sues ‘Modded Hardware’ and r/SwitchPirates Moderator ‘Archbox’ |url=https://torrentfreak.com/nintendo-sues-modded-hardware-and-r-switchpirates-moderator-archbox-240701/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710091021/https://torrentfreak.com/nintendo-sues-modded-hardware-and-r-switchpirates-moderator-archbox-240701/ |archive-date=10 Jul 2024 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=TorrentFreak}}</ref>

*In May 2025, Nintendo updated their privacy policy<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Nintendo |title=Nintendo Privacy Policy |url=https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/privacy_policy/US?lang=en-US |access-date=May 9, 2025 |website=Nintendo Accounts}}</ref> to reserve the company the right to remotely disable consoles owned by consumers if it detects modified hardware or software attempting to run on the system.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Nightingale |first=Ed |date=May 9, 2025 |title=Nintendo reserves the right to brick your console following "unauthorised use", in bid to prevent piracy |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-reserves-the-right-to-brick-your-console-following-unauthorised-use-in-bid-to-prevent-piracy |access-date=May 9, 2025 |website=Eurogamer}}</ref>

===De-listing/destruction of access to games===
<blockquote>''Further Reading: [[Storefront shutdown#Wii U/3DS eShops (2012–2023)]], [[Storefront shutdown#Wii Shop Channel (2006–2019)]]'' </blockquote>In late January of 2019, Nintendo shut down their first digital storefront, the Wii Shop Channel.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019 |title=Wii Shop Channel Discontinuation |url=https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/27560/~/wii-shop-channel-discontinuation |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=Nintendo Customer Support}}</ref> Super Mario 3D All-Stars was pulled from the Nintendo eShop and store shelves on March 31st, 2021. <ref>{{Cite news |last=Martinez |first=Phillip |date=2021-03-02 |title='Super Mario 3D All-Stars' and More Still to be Removed by Nintendo in March |url=https://www.newsweek.com/super-mario-3d-all-stars-35-anniversary-game-watch-nintendo-removed-1573211 |work=Newsweek}}</ref> Anyone who downloaded the game or purchased a physical copy was granted access past the expiration date. On March 27, 2023, Nintendo shut down the Wii U and [[Nintendo 3DS|3DS]] eShops.<ref>{{Cite web |date=Apr 2023 |title=Notice of End of Purchases in Nintendo eShop for Wii U and Nintendo 3DUpdate April 2023 |url=https://www.nintendo.com/au/support/articles/wii-u-and-nintendo-3ds-eshop-discontinuation/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=Nintendo Support}}</ref> These shutdowns have made it nearly impossible to legally obtain new copies for hundreds of games. Titles affected include Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, Pokémon Picross, and more.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 Mar 2023 |title=These are the 1,000 digital-only 3DS and Wii U games disappearing next week |url=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/analysis-digital-only-wii-u-3ds-games/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=www.videogameschronicle.com}}</ref> As of now, over 1,000 digitally exclusive games can only be obtained through piracy, and a subset requires additional modification to run.

In early 2025, [[Nintendo Switch Online]] (NSO) delisted a game for the first time, Super Soccer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@GVG |date=28 Feb 2025 |title=First Game Removed from Nintendo Switch Online |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSz-wKls0Wk |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Glagowski |first=Peter |date=28 Feb 2025 |title=Nintendo of Japan announces title will be removed from NSO library, first time since launch |url=https://nintendowire.com/news/2025/02/28/nintendo-of-japan-announces-title-will-be-removed-from-nso-library-first-time-since-launch/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=Nintendo Wire}}</ref> With the previously mentioned events of delisting of products a consumer owns for their consoles, such as a physical game on disc or a previously downloaded digital title, consumers still had the ability to play these games, and in some instances, even reinstall them. However, with [[Nintendo Switch Online|NSO]] acting as a [[streaming service]] for games it provides to consumers, when a title is delisted, consumers completely and totally lose access to the game, unless the company who requested the title to be delisted were to re-list the game on the service. This event has caused rightful concern among consumers, because this may set a dangerous precedent for access to retro games in the future.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Flores Jr. |first=Johnny |date=1 Mar 2025 |title=Nintendo Is Delisting A Game From The Switch Online Library For The First Time |url=https://www.thegamer.com/nintendo-delisting-snes-game-from-switch-online-library/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=The Gamer}}</ref>

===Nintendo authorized repair===
<blockquote>Further Reading: [[Nintendo authorized repair]]

[[Nintendo refuses to repair water damaged Switch 2 console]]</blockquote>A man sent in their Nintendo Switch to Nintendo for repair of a broken charging port and was given an estimate of £132 (161.51 USD) to replace the entire motherboard, which would result in data loss and noted screen damage. This was despite the only damage to the console being to the charging port and a screen protector, and not the screen itself.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=31 Jul 2021 |title=Why Nintendo authorized repair sucks: the incentives are at odds with a good repair experience |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxKJn35DK8k |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>  

======Rust in new units of Switch 2======
Around early-mid July 2025 there have been findings of brand new Nintendo Switch 2 having rust on internal components.

On June 30th, 2025 a YouTube channel "BGA TECH ASSISTÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIA" uploaded a video titled "Swich 2 vs Oled, Technical Review, weight, motherboard, which has the biggest battery?". During the process of disassembly of the new device they discovered rust on an internal component (which can be seen in the video at around 17:16). <ref>{{Cite web |date=June 30, 2025 |title=Swich 2 vs Oled, Technical Review, weight, motherboard, which has the biggest battery? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_ne2cL_-U&t=1036s |website=youtube.com}}</ref>

On July 8th, 2025 a Nintendo customer made a post on Reddit<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-08 |title=Bricked Switch 2, Nintendo claiming water damage |url=https://old.reddit.com/r/consolerepair/comments/1lugq83/bricked_switch_2_nintendo_claiming_water_damage/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250715124737/https://old.reddit.com/r/consolerepair/comments/1lugq83/bricked_switch_2_nintendo_claiming_water_damage/ |archive-date=2025-07-15 |website=reddit.com}}</ref> describing how Nintendo refused to repair a defective device under warranty. In this case, customer's device stopped turning on about a week after a purchase, but it still kept drawing some power. Customer sent the device to Nintendo for repairs. Nintendo replied that "CPU and LCD housing were corroded due to water damage", refused to repair device free of charge under "twelve (12) month from the day of purchase" limited warranty<ref>{{Cite web |title=Warranty and Service Information |url=https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/50404 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250708231402/https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/50404 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |website=nintendo.com}}</ref> and wanted to charge customer around 35,000 yen (~$240) for a repair. Nintendo also confirmed that water damage indicator stickers did NOT change color. Customer refused receiving a repair, received unit back and made an unboxing video of this device. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-13 |title=Unboxing my DEAD Switch 2 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Z4sWJK2J8 |website=youtube.com}}</ref>

===Joy-Con and Joystick related Hardware Failures===

[[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]] are the included controllers (retailing for $80) for the Nintendo Switch, and they are prone to failure via "stick drift" within a few months of purchase. According to the 2022 study by the British consumer protection group '''Which?''<nowiki/>', 40% of [[Nintendo Switch]] owners experienced [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Con]] drift.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Laughlin |first=Andrew |date=14 Jun 2022 |title=Two in five UK Nintendo Switch Classic consoles blighted by Joy-Con drift |url=https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/two-in-five-uk-nintendo-switch-classic-consoles-blighted-by-joy-con-drift-aVaRY2j5RoO8 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220626212228/https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/two-in-five-uk-nintendo-switch-classic-consoles-blighted-by-joy-con-drift-aVaRY2j5RoO8 |archive-date=26 Jun 2022 |access-date=1 Jun 2025 |website=Which?}}</ref> This defect is also found in other official Nintendo controllers, like the Pro Controller (Pro-Cons), and the Switch Lite, a version of the Nintendo Switch that has its Joy-Cons built into the handheld system. Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa apologized for the "inconvenience" and subsequently launched Nintendo's "free repair program."

The way the "free repair program" works is that the user will send the defective [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]] to Nintendo for "repair," which, in most cases, involves replacing the defective [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]] with new ones. The problem arises in cases involving limited edition [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]], where you have to sign off on consenting to the possibility of your limited edition or "non-standard colored" [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]] being replaced with a standard color [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Con]] if they are sent to Nintendo for "repair." This leaves consumers with these limited edition [[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Cons]] without a guaranteed way to get their products repaired if they use Nintendo's official repair service.

===The Big House Online Tournament (2020)===
On November 19th, 2020, The Big House, a Super Smash Brothers Melee and Ultimate tournament, announced on X (formerly known as Twitter) that they had received a cease and desist from Nintendo of America, and would be forced to cancel the tournament.<ref name=":5" /> Nintendo had told The Big House that they were not allowed to host their online tournament because of their use of a game modification. The modification was Slippi, which runs through a GameCube and Wii emulator called Dolphin to enable online functionality for Super Smash Bros. Melee.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About - What is Slippi? |url=https://slippi.gg/about |url-status=live |access-date=31 May 2025 |website=Slippi.gg}}</ref>

Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic, The Big House tournament was going to be run online primarily for attendees' safety. Melee is a video game from 2001 that does not have built-in online functionality, so it would have been impossible to run an online tournament for it without the use of modifications. A Nintendo of America spokesperson claimed that the cease and desist was issued to "protect [Nintendo's] intellectual property and brands". The spokesperson also stated that allowing the tournament to run would "condone or allow piracy of [Nintendo's] intellectual property". In other words, the spokesperson claimed that using Slippi would have required the use of pirated copies of Melee<ref name=":4" />, despite the fact that professional Melee players typically play legitimate copies of the game on official hardware to practice and compete.

===Etika JOYCONBOYZ Charity Shutdown===
On or around June 19, 2019, popular YouTuber Desmond Daniel Amofah known by his YouTube username Etika was found deceased after having committed suicide following a series of mental health issues. He was known for his livestream reactions to Nintendo's online events such as Nintendo Direct presentations. Known for his over-the-top reaction style, his fanbase became unofficially known as the "JOYCONBOYZ". Among tributes following his passing, fellow YouTuber JoyConJames created custom shells for the Nintendo Switch Joy-Con controllers known as Etikons which contained the official fan phrase "JOYCONBOYZ" printed on them with a proceed of sales for each shell going to mental health awareness and mental health research facilities. On December 6, 2020, JoyConJames uploaded a YouTube video announcing that he had received a cease & desist notice from Nintendo prohibiting him from selling the Joy-Con skins. The notion that the skins were being sold for charity and in honor of a fan of Nintendo and their work drew anger and criticism from the company's fan base.<ref>{{cite web |title=Custom Joy-Cons That Honor Deceased YouTuber Shut Down By Nintendo |url=https://screenrant.com/nintendo-switch-joycon-etika-joyconboyz-shut-down-charity/ |url-status=live |access-date=13 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Nintendo V. Pocketpair===
Nintendo is suing Pocketpair, the developers of the extremely popular video game Palworld,<ref>{{Cite web |last=@Palworld_EN |date=19 Sep 2024 |title=Palworld_EN on X |url=https://x.com/Palworld_EN/status/1836692701355688146 |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=X}}</ref> for patent infringement, despite filing the patent after Palworld was already released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 May 2024 |title=US Patent Application for STORAGE MEDIUM STORING GAME PROGRAM, GAME SYSTEM, GAME APPARATUS, AND GAME PROCESSING METHOD Patent Application (Application #20240278129) |url=https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240278129 |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=patents.justia.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=@PirateSoftware |date=17 Oct 2024 |title=Palworld Lawsuit |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZZx4wiofw |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Feb 2025 |title=Nintendo Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks More |url=https://gamerant.com/nintendo-anti-palworld-patents-uspto-infringement-lawsuit-implications/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref> Should Nintendo win this case, users who purchased licenses for Palworld may be revoked.

===Nintendo Creators Program===
{{Main|Nintendo Creators Program}}
In 2013, Nintendo placed advertisements on let's play videos where their games were played, taking 100% of all revenue made by said adverts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Plunkett |first=Luke |date=15 May 2013 |title=Nintendo Forcing Ads On Some YouTube "Let's Play" Videos |url=https://kotaku.com/nintendo-forcing-ads-on-some-youtube-lets-play-video-507092383 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607222601/https://kotaku.com/nintendo-forcing-ads-on-some-youtube-lets-play-video-507092383 |archive-date=7 Jun 2013 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Kotaku}}</ref> In 2015, Nintendo started a YouTube partnership program, which required the removal of all non-Nintendo related videos on the channel, creators being given 60% of revenue per video or 70% of the channel's gross revenue. The program only allowed games on an internal Nintendo-made whitelist which infamously lacked multiple large/popular releases of the time.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=29 Jan 2015 |title=Nintendo to share up to 70 percent of ad revenue with game YouTubers |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/01/nintendo-to-share-up-to-70-percent-of-ad-revenue-with-game-youtubers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150208085014/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/01/nintendo-to-share-up-to-70-percent-of-ad-revenue-with-game-youtubers/ |archive-date=8 Feb 2015 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=ArsTechnica}}</ref> In 2017, Nintendo announced that live streaming wasn't allowed for creators in their Creator Program.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=2 Oct 2017 |title=Nintendo no longer welcoming YouTube livestreams of its games |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/nintendo-cuts-off-ad-program-for-youtube-livestreamers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171004040443/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/nintendo-cuts-off-ad-program-for-youtube-livestreamers/ |archive-date=4 Oct 2017 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=ArsTechnica}}</ref> It ended in 2018<ref>{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=29 Nov 2018 |title=Nintendo ends controversial YouTube revenue-sharing program |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/11/nintendo-loosens-content-restrictions-ends-revenue-splitting-for-video-makers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181130073206/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/11/nintendo-loosens-content-restrictions-ends-revenue-splitting-for-video-makers/ |archive-date=30 Nov 2018 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=ArsTechnica}}</ref>, with Nintendo stating they “encourage you to create videos that include your creative input and commentary” and that “Videos and images that contain mere copies of Nintendo Game Content without creative input or commentary are not permitted.”<ref>{{Cite web |first= |date=2 Sep 2024 |title=Nintendo Game Content Guidelines for Online Video & Image Sharing Platforms |url=https://www.nintendo.co.jp/networkservice_guideline/en/index.html?n |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250322224418/https://www.nintendo.co.jp/networkservice_guideline/en/index.html?n |archive-date=22 Mar 2025 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Nintendo}}</ref>

===Nintendo Switch 2 USB-C port anti-competitiveness===
Nintendo Switch 2 and its dock transfer information like all other USB-C connections, but they will talk in code effectively denying all other connections seeking to display video. Research from The Verge has shown that this language is almost exclusive to the Switch 2, but did find one notable exception: the Antank S3 Max TV dock at the lower price point of $29.99. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=2025-07-02 |title=How Nintendo locked down the Switch 2’s USB-C port and broke third-party docking {{!}} The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/report/695915/switch-2-usb-c-third-party-docks-dont-work-authentication-encryption |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717114136/https://www.theverge.com/report/695915/switch-2-usb-c-third-party-docks-dont-work-authentication-encryption |archive-date=2025-07-17 |website=The Verge}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Antank S3 MAX TV Dock Station for Nintendo Switch 2 -- Antank Official Store |url=https://antank.net/products/s3-max?srsltid=AfmBOoqng_pXTXBmI-2YvHnJ4xniibP4VL8ovodbh-w5IPSgdrSGiDUE |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250816195135/https://antank.net/products/s3-max?srsltid=AfmBOoqng_pXTXBmI-2YvHnJ4xniibP4VL8ovodbh-w5IPSgdrSGiDUE |archive-date=2025-08-16 |website=Antank}}</ref> In practice, this means Nintendo has a near monopoly on docks and it would be possible for them to enact a firmware update to stop all independent companies who may have found a way to make their technology compatible. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Khullar |first=Kunal |date=2025-07-03 |title=Nintendo is restricting the Switch 2's USB-C port — most third-party docks and accessories won't work thanks to proprietary protocols |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/nintendo/nintendo-is-restricting-the-switch-2s-usb-c-port-most-third-party-docks-and-accessories-wont-work-thanks-to-proprietary-protocols |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250816194217/https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/nintendo/nintendo-is-restricting-the-switch-2s-usb-c-port-most-third-party-docks-and-accessories-wont-work-thanks-to-proprietary-protocols |archive-date=2025-08-16 |website=Tom's Hardware}}</ref> To buy an official Nintendo Switch 2 dock from the Nintendo store it costs $124.99 and many customers would prefer a cheaper alternative. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Nintendo Switch 2 Dock Set - Nintendo Official Site |url=https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/nintendo-switch-2-dock-set-123791/?srsltid=AfmBOoq7cJk9ApjZW8IBGczhFHnf4gINg7U8BJsMyi5GH-wr_K-0TVf4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250816193742/https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/nintendo-switch-2-dock-set-123791/?srsltid=AfmBOoq7cJk9ApjZW8IBGczhFHnf4gINg7U8BJsMyi5GH-wr_K-0TVf4 |archive-date=2025-08-16 |website=Nintendo}}</ref> Customers report the device's Ethernet port occasionally disconnects and others say it can overheat due to the poor design blocking ventilation. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Corsetti |first=Adam |date=2025-07-03 |title=USB-C port testing explains why a third-party Nintendo Switch 2 dock won't work with console - NotebookCheck.net News |url=https://www.notebookcheck.net/USB-C-port-testing-explains-why-a-third-party-Nintendo-Switch-2-dock-won-t-work-with-console.1049869.0.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250816200245/https://www.notebookcheck.net/USB-C-port-testing-explains-why-a-third-party-Nintendo-Switch-2-dock-won-t-work-with-console.1049869.0.html |archive-date=2025-08-16 |website=Notebook Check}}</ref>

USB-C port restrictions in order to halt 3rd-party competition with docks and other accessories. These restrictions are caused by encrypted communications between the official dock and the console, as 3rd-party devices use a universal standard that Nintendo refuses to use.

===Controversial agreements and policies===
{{Main|Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates}}
On May 8th, 2025, Nintendo changed their privacy policy<ref name="PrivacyPolicyMain">{{Cite web |title=Nintendo Privacy Policy |url=https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/privacy_policy/US?lang=en-US |access-date=May 15, 2025 |website=Nintendo Accounts}}</ref><ref name="PrivacyPolicySummaryChanges">{{Cite web |title=Nintendo Privacy Policy - What's Changed? |url=https://www.nintendo.com/us/privacy-policy/whats-changed/ |access-date=May 15, 2025 |website=Nintendo}}</ref> and Nintendo Account User Agreement,<ref name="EULAMain2">{{Cite web |title=Nintendo Account User Agreement |url=https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US |access-date=May 15, 2025 |website=Nintendo Accounts}}</ref> with features inside both which have the potential to negatively impact consumers. Highlights such as Section 6 (Adherence to content guidelines), Section 13 (reservation to render hardware/software inaccessible), and section 16 (forced arbitration) are key features that come to the risk of right to ownership of hardware and software that consumers may have paid for.

Considerable backlash occurred especially over section 13, as both consumers<ref name="RunNGameYouTube">{{Cite web |last=Run N Game Entertainment |date=May 13, 2025 |title=Is Nintendo breaking the law? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOiD-lvaok |access-date=May 14, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref><ref name="FashoKangYouTube">{{Cite web |last=Fasho |first=Kang |date=May 11, 2025 |title=The Switch 2 will RUIN Gaming [Full Controversy Explained] (Angry Rant) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P8Pv97mt8U |access-date=May 14, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref><ref name="NintenDeenYouTube">{{Cite web |last=NintenDeen |date=May 9, 2025 |title=Console Bans |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1H6cKTNxKM |access-date=May 14, 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> and outlets<ref name="EurogamerBricking2025">{{Cite web |last=Nightingale |first=Ed |date=May 9, 2025 |title=Nintendo reserves the right to brick your console following "unauthorised use", in bid to prevent piracy |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-reserves-the-right-to-brick-your-console-following-unauthorised-use-in-bid-to-prevent-piracy |access-date=May 9, 2025 |website=Eurogamer}}</ref><ref name="GameFileEffectiveDate">{{Cite news |last=Totilo |first=Stephen |date=May 8, 2025 |title=Nintendo warns it may brick Switch systems whose users “bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with” their games and services |url=https://www.gamefile.news/p/nintendo-emulation-hacking-brick-warning-terms-of-service |access-date=May 15, 2025 |work=Game File}}</ref> believe this means Nintendo reserved the right to effectively "brick" consoles such as the [[Nintendo Switch]] or its successor.<ref name=":1" /> This also may concern repair shops, as they may be required to instead purchase proprietary repair software from Nintendo to run diagnostics for the console, or otherwise risk bricking the console running personal/community-developed software.

===Deliberately locking Switch 2 consoles behind an online-only patch===
Users have reported Switch 2 consoles being in stock in some stores,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Reynolds |first=Ollie |date=May 26, 2025 |title=US Retailers Are Reportedly Starting To Receive Switch 2 Stock |url=https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2025/05/us-retailers-are-reportedly-starting-to-receive-switch-2-stock |access-date=May 28, 2025 |work=Nintendo Life}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Alleexxi |date=May 27, 2025 |title=The Nintendo Switch 2 is already in end users' hands. {{!}} Switch Locked behind Day 1 Patch |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch2/comments/1kwv8go/the_nintendo_switch_2_is_already_in_end_users/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250527185423/https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch2/comments/1kwv8go/the_nintendo_switch_2_is_already_in_end_users/ |archive-date=May 27, 2025 |access-date=May 28, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> however for these users who did get their hands on the console early among a multitude of reasons, these consoles are locked behind a patch that requires an internet connection to Nintendo servers to use the consoles.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Kent |first=Bobby |date=May 27, 2025 |title=Nintendo Switch 2 Gets Out Early, But It’s Locked Behind A Day 1 Patch |url=https://gameluster.com/nintendo-switch-2-gets-out-early-but-its-locked-behind-a-day-1-patch/ |access-date=May 28, 2025 |website=Game Luster}}</ref> While this is a measure used to deter piracy ahead of the system's launch,<ref name=":3" /> this does mean that users will be required to connect to the internet to have any viable console functionality post-launch.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Drake |first=John |date=May 27, 2025 |title=Early Leak of Nintendo Switch 2 Get Locked Out By Day 1 Patch |url=https://gurugamer.com/pc-console/early-leak-of-nintendo-switch-2-get-locked-out-by-day-1-patch-24742 |access-date=May 28, 2025 |work=Guru Gamer}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Hagues |first=Alana |date=May 27, 2025 |title=Switch 2 Units Are Allegedly Out In The Wild, But You Might Need An Update For Switch 1 Games |url=https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2025/05/switch-2-units-are-allegedly-out-in-the-wild-but-you-might-need-an-update-for-switch-1-games |access-date=May 28, 2025 |work=Nintendo Life}}</ref>

Despite these measures, a sizeable portion of the Switch 1 library, and especially AAA titles, will not be available to play post-launch for an undetermined period of time.<ref>{{Cite web |last=FritangaPlays |date=May 28, 2025 |title=Over 100 Switch 2 Games That Will Not Work At Launch! OFFICIAL UPDATE |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=930oJHZd4Y0 |access-date=May 28, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>

===Console bans stripping vital features===
{{Main|Nintendo Switch bans}}
There have been reports from users that the usage of the MIG Switch cartridge on the [[Nintendo Switch|''Nintendo Switch 2'']] will cause the device to be banned from all online services provided to the console,<ref name=":32">{{Cite web |last=Scattered Brain |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Soo... Nintendo banned my Switch 2 (Don't try the MIG Switch!) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo&t=656s |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Faulkner |first=Cameron |date=Jun 17, 2025 |title=Nintendo will take your Switch 2 offline forever if you use a Mig flash cartridge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/688483/nintendo-switch-2-ban-error-code-mig-flash-cartridge-online |journal=The Verge}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ratchet Mods |date=Jun 20, 2025 |title=Nintendo BRICKS MIG Flash user's Switch 2 - The Difference between banning a Switch and BRICKING it |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn4969P2RIA |access-date=Jun 20, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> regardless of the usage of the cartridge for legitimately dumped software, homebrew, or otherwise. Compared to previous console generations, the online bans on the [[Nintendo Switch|''Nintendo Switch 2'']] will cause a soft-brick, as vital features such as the ''eShop'' or factory resetting the device are permanently disabled. <ref name=":02">{{Cite news |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=Jun 17, 2025 |title=Switch 2 users report online console bans after running personal game “backups” |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/06/playing-personal-game-backups-could-get-your-switch-2-banned-by-nintendo/ |access-date=Jun 19, 2025 |work=Ars Technica}}</ref>

The disabling of the ''eShop'' in particular means the console cannot download games or updates, and in particular disables the functionality of [[Switch Game Key-Card|game-key cards]], which require access to the ''eShop'' to be capable of downloading the game.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Jason |date=Jun 5, 2025 |title=Buying Physical? Watch Out For the Switch 2's Game-Key Cards |url=https://www.pcmag.com/explainers/nintendo-switch-2-game-cards-vs-game-key-cards-vs-downloads-whats-the-difference |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=PC Mag}}</ref>

==='''Patented gameplay mechanics (2025)'''===
In September 2025 Nintendo and The Pokémon Company were granted U.S. patent [https://archive.org/details/12403397/page/n1/mode/2up US 12,403,397 B2] covering a method of summoning a secondary character and instantly initiating a “fast mode” battle when an enemy occupies the location. While seemingly narrow, critics warn the wording is broad enough to overlap with common mechanics in MMORPGs, action RPGs, and other real-time combat games. Observers argue that enforcing such a patent could stifle creativity, complicate development of similar features in future titles, and even create legal uncertainty for existing games that already use comparable encounter or companion-summoning systems.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-10 |title=Patent No.: US 12,403,397 B2 |url=https://archive.org/details/12403397/page/n1/mode/2up}}</ref>

==Products==

===Console Hardware===

*[[Nintendo 3DS|3DS/2DS]]
*Nintendo Wii U
*[[Nintendo Switch]]/Switch 2

===Console peripherals/add-ons===

*[[Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons|Joy-Con]]
*[[Switch Pro Controller]]
*[[Switch Game Key-Card]]

===Software===

*[[Nintendo Switch Online]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Monetization overload

2025-11-06T10:32:47Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{Incomplete}}{{ToneWarning}}'''Monetization overload''', or '''over-monetization''', is when a company focuses on heavily monetizing a product or service, usually at the cost of consumer engagement or even functionality. Over-monetization may come in the form of [[advertising overload]], [[Predatory microtransactions|microtransactions]], unjustified [[Subscription service|subscriptions]], locking core features behind a paywall, etc. While its understood that products and services require compensation in some form, even when they're "free", the degradation of quality, limits of functionality, and loss of consumer engagement are often symptoms of excessive monetization of the product or service.

==Why it is a problem==

===Genericide===
When a product, more specifically a [[Games as a service|live service game]], focuses extremely on monetization, it retroactively dulls the experience of the product, even going so far as to devalue the product itself. This especially can damage the core purpose of the product, since an event entirely unrelated to it could effectively block consumers from the full functionality of their product.

Often when a game faces genericide through monetization, publishers are biased against development on core features and even bug fixes, instead opting for implementing more generic or otherwise unrelated products to sell on the in-game storefront. For example, the Call of Duty Squid Game promotion overtook the spotlight of development for the game,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Armughanuddin |first=Md |date=Published Jan 3, 2025 |title=Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Confirms Bad News About Squid Game Crossover Event |url=https://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-6-squid-game-crossover-premium-battle-pass/ |access-date=3 Apr 2025 |work=GameRant}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kain |first=Erik |date=6 Jan 2025 |title=‘Warzone’ Is Completely Broken After ‘Squid Game’ Update |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2025/01/06/warzone-is-completely-broken-after-squid-game-update/ |access-date=3 Apr 2025 |work=Forbes}}</ref> rather than the development of the game's anticheat, despite promises from [[Activision]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zhou |first=Andrew |date=Jan 3, 2025 |title=Fans Are Not Thrilled About The New Black Ops 6 Squid Game Event Due To The Premium Reward Track Price Tag |url=https://screenrant.com/black-ops-6-squid-game-price-premium/ |access-date=Apr 3, 2025 |work=ScreenRant}}</ref>

===Monetization Bias===
Often when a product is over-monetized, the development of said product often ends up being biased towards features that increases transactions from consumers or advertising promotions from other companies. This kind of bias also does not favor developing features and fixes that do not directly incur revenue for the publisher, including but not limited to patching bugs, tweaking balance, repairing product defects, and moderating communities.

===Monetizing mundane features===
Some product features that may have been normal and free to access for consumers could also be monetized in absurd ways. Free to play (F2P) titles could see experience progression be slowed down to encourage purchasing "experience boosts".

This can be further applied with mundane monetization, where products could have barely different variants being sold at the same time. This is especially seen with cosmetics for games, where even a simple reshade could be sold.

===Advertising Overload===
{{Main|Advertising overload}}
In an effort to make money from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products to generate revenue. This can become adverse if the company is hasty to integrate advertisements.
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Common terms]]

Milwaukee battery DRM

2025-11-06T10:30:14Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Milwaukee, TTI
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Power tools
|Product=Milwaukee M18 batteries
|ArticleType=Product
|Description=Undisclosed digital rights management (DRM) and diagnostic tracking in Milwaukee M18 batteries allegedly used in warranty claim denials.
}}
Milwaukee Tool, a subsidiary of Techtronic Industries (TTI), produces the M18 line of lithium-ion batteries for use with its cordless power tools. These batteries incorporate an embedded system marketed as '''REDLINK™ Intelligence''', which allows the battery & charger to communicate for monitoring of conditions such as cell voltage, pack temperature, & charge status.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Batteries-and-Chargers |title=Power Tool Batteries: M12, M18 – Milwaukee Tool |website=Milwaukee Tool |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114012041/https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Batteries-and-Chargers |archive-date=2025-01-14}}</ref>

Operator manuals describe that Milwaukee battery packs contain protective electronics designed to prevent overload & overheating, & that fuel-gauge LEDs will flash to indicate fault conditions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://media.milwaukeetool.com/OperatorsManuals/0000000000/58-14-2165d3.pdf |title=Operator’s Manual – Milwaukee M12 & M18 Battery Charger |website=Milwaukee Tool |date=2020-04-01 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240721101543/https://media.milwaukeetool.com/OperatorsManuals/0000000000/58-14-2165d3.pdf |archive-date=2024-07-21}}</ref>

==Incident==
[[File:Tool Scientist - Full M18 diagnostics revealed - Spreadsheet 16m07s.png|thumb|Milwaukee Battery Diagnostic Readout]]
In August 2024, an independent YouTube investigation demonstrated that Milwaukee M18 batteries store hundreds of bytes of hidden diagnostic data. These logs include over 50 different statistics, such as counts of over-current events, over-temperature events, cell voltage imbalances with millivolt precision, low-voltage cutoffs, total discharge statistics, total charge time, time on charger whilst full, etc. The data can be accessed through undocumented serial commands but is not disclosed in user manuals.<ref name="TSYT">{{Cite web |date=2025-09-13|author=Tool Scientist|title=Full M18 diagnostics revealed |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHj0-Gzvbeo |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>

Community reverse-engineering reports published on Hackaday also documented communication traces between batteries & chargers, confirming that undocumented registers store diagnostic histories not available through consumer interfaces.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/reverse-engineering-the-milwaukee-m18-redlink-protocol/ |title=Reverse Engineering the Milwaukee M18 REDLINK Protocol |website=Hackaday |date=2023-09-15 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104104402/https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/reverse-engineering-the-milwaukee-m18-redlink-protocol/ |archive-date=2024-01-04}}</ref>

Some consumers reported that warranty claims were denied when diagnostic data showed overheating events. In online complaints, users alleged that leaving a battery inside a vehicle in hot weather resulted in warranty denial.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Tools/comments/17t5d3s/milwaukee_battery_warranty_denied_due_to/ |title=Milwaukee Battery Warranty Denied Due to Overheating |website=Reddit |date=2023-11-21 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240121104533/https://www.reddit.com/r/Tools/comments/17t5d3s/milwaukee_battery_warranty_denied_due_to/ |archive-date=2024-01-21}}</ref>

==Legal context==
In 2017, Milwaukee issued a safety notice in consultation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) concerning the M18 High Demand 9.0 Ah battery pack (model 48-11-1890).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.milwaukeetool.com/News/Safety-Notices/Expanded-Warning-On-The-M18-HIGH-DEMAND-9-0-Battery |title=Expanded Warning on the M18 High Demand 9.0 Battery |website=Milwaukee Tool |date=2017-08-25 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240701104632/https://www.milwaukeetool.com/News/Safety-Notices/Expanded-Warning-On-The-M18-HIGH-DEMAND-9-0-Battery |archive-date=2024-07-01}}</ref>

Earlier, in 2007, the CPSC recalled certain Milwaukee battery packs due to rupture hazards that posed laceration risks.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2007/batteries-used-with-power-tools-recalled-by-milwaukee-electric-tool-co-due-to |title=Batteries Used With Power Tools Recalled By Milwaukee Electric Tool Co. Due To Laceration Hazard |website=CPSC |date=2007-06-19 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710105824/https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2007/batteries-used-with-power-tools-recalled-by-milwaukee-electric-tool-co-due-to |archive-date=2024-07-10}}</ref>

As of September 2025, no publicly reported lawsuits or regulatory actions have been filed regarding the use of hidden diagnostic data in warranty adjudication.

==Business context==
Milwaukee’s warranty policy covers defects in materials & workmanship but explicitly excludes misuse, abuse, or alterations. These exclusions are broadly consistent with other power tool manufacturers’ practices.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Support/Warranty |title=Milwaukee Warranty Policy |website=Milwaukee Tool |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705104212/https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Support/Warranty |archive-date=2024-07-05}}</ref>

==Consumer impact==
Consumers have expressed concern that undisclosed logging could void warranties for circumstances outside of their control, such as environmental heat exposure. Community projects have since published open-source tools that allow end users to read diagnostic registers from Milwaukee batteries, giving them access to the same information the manufacturer uses internally.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/m18battery/diagnostics |title=Milwaukee M18 Battery Diagnostics Project |website=GitHub |date=2024-08-20 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240718105511/https://github.com/m18battery/diagnostics |archive-date=2024-07-18}}</ref> The "M18 HD12" battery series from Milwaukee currently has a 2.1/5 stars score from 522 reviews [https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Batteries-and-Chargers/M18-Batteries-and-Chargers/48-11-1812 on their own website], and the "M12 XC6" battery has a 1.7/5 stars score from 321 reviews on their own website and the company's [https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.milwaukeetool.com Trustpilot reviews] currently sit at 1.6/5 stars for their entire product line and after-sales service, with many consumer complaints that warranty claims on Milwaukee batteries have been denied, even though their batteries were still within the warranty period. Presumably, Milwaukee is downloading the usage logs from consumer's batteries and looking for any possible data-set to deny a warranty claim.<ref name="TSYT" />

==Industry comparison==
The use of embedded diagnostic counters is not unique to Milwaukee. Reports indicate that competing brands such as Makita have implemented similar protocols in their lithium-ion batteries.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2024/01/22/makita-battery-protocol-reversed/ |title=Makita Battery Protocol Reversed |website=Hackaday |date=2024-01-22 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240712104842/https://hackaday.com/2024/01/22/makita-battery-protocol-reversed/ |archive-date=2024-07-12}}</ref> Ryobi (which is owned by Techtronic Industries, which is the same parent company that owns Milwaukee) also uses the same embedded diagnostics in their batteries.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Badar's Workshop |date=2025-08-25|title=Ryobi Doesn't Want You To Know |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ_lyDyzEHY |url-status=live |access-date=2025-09-15|website=YouTube}}</ref> The YouTube channel Badar's Workshop, was able to purchase 30 non-functioning or bricked Ryobi batteries on Ebay and got them all working again by simply flashing the code from a non-bricked Ryobi battery onto the bricked batteries ie. no physical repair was necessary, it was simply the DRM which prevented the batteries from being recognised by the Ryobi charger and receiving a charge.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kayani |first=Badar Jahangir |date=24 Aug 2025 |title=Ryobi Battery Repair Guide |url=https://badar.tech/2025/08/24/ryobi-battery-repair-guide/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250915030330/https://badar.tech/2025/08/24/ryobi-battery-repair-guide/ |archive-date=15 Sep 2025 |access-date=15 Sep 2025 |website=badar.tech}}</ref>

==Company response==
Milwaukee states that REDLINK is intended to protect tools & batteries from damage due to overload, overheating, & over-discharge.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.milwaukeetool.eu/technology/redlink/ |title=REDLINK™ Intelligence Technology |website=Milwaukee Tool EU |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240722105114/https://www.milwaukeetool.eu/technology/redlink/ |archive-date=2024-07-22}}</ref> The company has not publicly addressed concerns that hidden diagnostic logs may be used to deny warranty claims.

==Analysis==
Critics argue that the hidden nature of these diagnostic counters undermines transparency in warranty adjudication, leaving consumers unable to contest warranty denials without access to the same data Milwaukee uses. Advocates for the right to repair cite this as an example of digital rights management in hardware, where the consumer’s ability to control, repair, & assert ownership over a purchased product is limited by undisclosed technical restrictions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/99321/hidden-diagnostics-right-to-repair |title=Hidden Diagnostics and Right to Repair |website=iFixit |date=2024-09-10 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240706105544/https://www.ifixit.com/News/99321/hidden-diagnostics-right-to-repair |archive-date=2024-07-06}}</ref>

==Timeline==
*2007 – CPSC recall of Milwaukee battery packs due to rupture hazard.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2007/batteries-used-with-power-tools-recalled-by-milwaukee-electric-tool-co-due-to |title=Batteries Used With Power Tools Recalled By Milwaukee Electric Tool Co. Due To Laceration Hazard |website=CPSC |date=2007-06-19 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710105824/https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2007/batteries-used-with-power-tools-recalled-by-milwaukee-electric-tool-co-due-to |archive-date=2024-07-10}}</ref>
*2017 – Milwaukee issues safety warning for M18 High Demand 9.0 battery in consultation with the CPSC.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.milwaukeetool.com/News/Safety-Notices/Expanded-Warning-On-The-M18-HIGH-DEMAND-9-0-Battery |title=Expanded Warning on the M18 High Demand 9.0 Battery |website=Milwaukee Tool |date=2017-08-25 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240701104632/https://www.milwaukeetool.com/News/Safety-Notices/Expanded-Warning-On-The-M18-HIGH-DEMAND-9-0-Battery |archive-date=2024-07-01}}</ref>
*2023 – Hackaday reports on community reverse-engineering of Milwaukee REDLINK protocol.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/reverse-engineering-the-milwaukee-m18-redlink-protocol/ |title=Reverse Engineering the Milwaukee M18 REDLINK Protocol |website=Hackaday |date=2023-09-15 |access-date=2025-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104104402/https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/reverse-engineering-the-milwaukee-m18-redlink-protocol/ |archive-date=2024-01-04}}</ref>
*2024 – YouTube researcher publicly demonstrates hidden diagnostic registers in Milwaukee M18 batteries.<ref name="TSYT" />

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Milwaukee Tool]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:Batteries]]

Hidden EULA language

2025-11-06T10:26:40Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{Main|End user license agreement}}

'''[[End-user license agreement|End-User License Agreements]]''' are often purposefully obfuscated through legal and technical language to hide terms and permissions that negatively affect the consumer. YouTuber and right-to-repair advocate, [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossman]], coined the term "'''EULA roofie'''" to describe this anti-consumer behavior, equating the hidden language for the purpose of securing an unfavorable agreement to drugging someone (''roofying)'' for personal gain. The concept of hidden language within a EULA applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase.

By hiding contentious or unconscionable terms in dense legal documents, manufacturers exploit:

#the consumer's lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents, and
#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's needs.

==Core Concept==
Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:

#Burying unattractive terms deep within an end-user license agreement, while avoiding their mention in marketing material and customer-facing interfaces.
#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.
#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.

==Types of hidden EULA language==

===Redefining "buy" and "own"===
Some companies attempt to redefine common terms such as "buy" and "own" through legal obfuscation within the EULA.

==="Neutral third-party" arbitration===
Many companies employ [[forced arbitration]] as a way to negate the consumer's right to pursue legal action against the company when they've been wronged. They hide this fact by using language to make it seem that the company is being fair by outsourcing issues in the company-consumer relationship to a "fair" and "nonjudgmental" third party who may act as a mediator during disputes. While this sounds neutral, objective, and even fair on the surface, it neglects the ways in which the company uses arbiters in their favor. Additionally, it completely removes the consumer's right to a class-action lawsuit in cases where the company's bad practice affects dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other consumers.

==Notable Examples==

===Sony PlayStation Store===
Sony prominently displays ''"PURCHASE"'' buttons for digital content but buries a redefinition of the word "purchase" in Section 10.1 of their Terms of Service:<ref>PLAYSTATIONTM NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT, December 30th, 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231230163548/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/</ref>

<blockquote>"Use of the terms 'own,' 'ownership', 'purchase,' 'sale,' 'sold,' 'sell,' 'rent' or 'buy'… does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership…"</blockquote>

This became an issue in 2023 when Sony and Discovery [[Sony's attempted removal of "purchased" content|removed previously "purchased" content]] from users' libraries, citing terms hidden in their service agreement.<ref>Playstation Video Content: Legal Update Notice https://web.archive.org/web/20231203150040/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/</ref>

Placing disclaimers such as "We may take away and remove television and movies you bought & paid for at any time, because purchase doesn't mean purchase anymore" next to the "Add to cart" button would understandably negatively affect sales. Therefore, Sony buries this information on page 21 of their Terms of Service.
===Smart Appliance Data Collection & Third-Party Data Sharing===

LG Electronics (among others) require users to accept extensive terms of service and privacy policies to use the "smart" features on home appliances, such as washing machines.

While the "smart" features may have time-saving benefits, the time required to actually read and decipher these documents (often 3+ hours, especially for non-tech-savvy users) negates any time-saving benefits of the smart features themselves. This makes meaningful informed consent impractical.

A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.

===Disney's Wrongful Death Lawsuit===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=2024-08-02 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>.

In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:

#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This example shows how Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Tangsuan had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, she was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed her even though the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>

==Consumer Impact==
The practice undermines informed consent in digital transactions by:

*Using lengthy documents (often 50+ pages) to hide terms that deprive the consumer of their privacy and their rights.
*Employing complex legal language to obscure the real meaning of agreements.
*Placing important information deep within documents where it is unlikely to be found.
*Presenting one meaning of terms (like "purchase") in the user interface while legally defining them differently in hidden terms.

==Legal Context==
While EULAs and [[Terms of service|Terms of Service]] are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:

*Meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties).
*Good-faith dealing.
*Reasonable notice of terms.
*Unconscionability (terms so unfair they shock the conscience).

==Consumer Protection Response==
The concept has been used in advocacy for:

*Plain-language requirements in consumer agreements.
*Prominent disclosure of significant terms.
*Reform of digital ownership rights.
Use of standard license agreements.

*More people review each license
*Encourages reviewers to post comparative license information

==Resources==

*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.
*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

==Further Reading==

*[[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]

==References==

<references />

[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]]
[[Category:Common license terms]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T02:45:11Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: replaced dupe cites

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref name=":4" /> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref name=":6" /> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T02:35:59Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: replaced dupe cites

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref name="Sacra" /> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{cite web |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref name="Sacra" />

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T02:27:51Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: replaced some dupe cites

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{cite web |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref name=":0" /> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref name=":0" /> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref name=":0" /> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name=":0" /> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name=":0" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T02:15:27Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Consumer Complaints about Business Practices */ fixed broken cite

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{cite web |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name="uwchr">{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name="uwchr" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name=":4" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T02:03:34Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Surveillance technology */ replaced some dope cites

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{cite web |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref name=":2" /> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref name=":2" /> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref name=":2" /> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref name=":2" /> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref name=":2" />

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref name=":3" />

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name="uwchr">{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name="uwchr" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name="forbes" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock Safety

2025-11-06T01:42:01Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: removed cite that was same as cite previous

{{ToneWarning}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States.
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}}
'''[[wikipedia:Flock_Safety|Flock Safety]]''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |date=2023-08-22 |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle}}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |access-date=26 Sep 2025 |website=[[Flock Safety]]}}</ref>

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than '''80,000''' AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2025-08-25 |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |access-date=2025-10-29}}</ref> Flock’s materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities and the company reports the system processes "over '''20 billion'''" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock’s claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-05-28 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue, and in March 2025 closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz that independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=2025-03-13 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-03-13 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Flock’s product materials state the company processes over 20 billion vehicle scans per month <ref>{{cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name="FlockFunding" /> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name="FlockFunding" />. As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Privacy Violations===
Critics, including civil liberties organizations, argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by LPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025; readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for developments. <ref>{{cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system offers no public opt-out mechanism.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref>, raising concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

'''Specific privacy violations include:'''
*'''Warrantless tracking and data sharing''': Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing<ref name="ACLUStanley" />
*'''Expanded audio surveillance''': In 2025, Flock announced its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds like screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |date=2025-10-02 |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Undermining state shield laws''': Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |date=7 Oct 2025 |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>
*'''Immigration enforcement:''' Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name="UWImmigration" />
*'''Contractual privacy overreach:''' The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS operating system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" />

Each subscription includes comprehensive services such as maintenance, software updates, data hosting, customer support, and unlimited user access.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “fingerprints”—including make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates, with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{cite web |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |website=Forbes |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects: as more cameras are deployed across jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool. Flock initially focused on homeowners associations—which still account for roughly 40% of its business—before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a “land-and-expand” growth strategy.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing |url=https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-advises-flock-safety-on-dollar275-million-financing.html |publisher=Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati |date=2025-03-14 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-05-06 |title=America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/05/06/simon-property-and-flock-safety-feed-ai-surveillance-feeds-to-the-cops/ |website=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-26 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/26/fedex-police-ai-car-surveillance-network-flock-safety/ |website=Forbes}}</ref> Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref>

The company's expansion is fueled by strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment. Following its acquisition of Aerodome, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S. manufacturing facility for drone production.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |publisher=CNBC |date=2025-06-10 |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Surveillance technology==
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]''

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The hardware component includes solar-powered '''License Plate Readers (LPR)''' that capture license plates and create a "Vehicle Fingerprint" based on make, model, color, and distinguishing features like bumper stickers or roof racks;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> '''Video Cameras''' with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> '''Gunshot Detection''' acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> and '''Drones''' acquired through Aerodome for "Drone as First Responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Expands Into Drones |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-expands-into-drones-for-law-enforcement-with-acquisition-of-aerodome |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

Specific product models include the '''Falcon''' and '''Sparrow''' license plate readers and the '''Raven''' gunshot detection system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz-Lecabe |first=Mike |date=2022-04-01 |title=Dissection of Flock Safety Camera |url=https://www.chrp.org/blog/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera |website=The Center for Human Rights and Privacy}}</ref> Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used '''Axon dashcams'''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-partners-with-flock-safety-to-enhance-security-for-cities-and-neighborhoods-302036099.html |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

The software platform includes '''FlockOS''', an operating system connecting devices and data as a real-time crime center;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> the '''National LPR Network''', a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> and '''Flock Nova''', a data analytics platform integrating LPR data with law enforcement systems like RMS and CAD to identify patterns.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety Product Hub |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products |website=Flock Safety |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref>

==Incidents==
===Wrongful Package Theft Accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (October 2025)===
In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the theft.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was forced to compile extensive exculpatory evidence including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor, ultimately submitting a 7-page affidavit and voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref>{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued," though no apology or explanation was provided by the department.<ref>{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This incident raises serious concerns about Flock's role in creating a surveillance state where citizens are presumed guilty until proving their innocence.

===Denver Contract and Surveillance Controversy (Ongoing)===
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.<ref name="cbsdenver">{{cite web | title=Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras | website=CBS News Colorado | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-camera-denver-city-council-mayor/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref><ref name="coloradopolitics">{{cite web | title=Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract | website=Colorado Politics | date=2025-10-23 | url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/23/anger-grows-as-denver-mayor-extends-flock-camera-contract/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.<ref name="cbsdenver" /> A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.<ref name="coloradopolitics" /><ref>{{cite video |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-23 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Rossmann has also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.<ref>{{cite video |title=A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step. |creator=Louis Rossmann |date=2025-10-20 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIp_4RaWk |accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" /> The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.<ref name="cbsdenver" /><ref name="coloradopolitics" />

===Data Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities (Ongoing)===
Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-27 | url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide | website=404 Media | date=2025-08-25 | url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Internal Flock data revealed CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states in potential violation of state sanctuary laws.<ref>{{cite web | title=License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns | website=ABC7 Chicago | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://abc7.com/post/flock-safety-license-plate-camera-company-halts-cooperation-federal-agencies-among-investigation-concerns-including-il/17653876/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Investigation of Abortion Seeker (May 2025)===
A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion | website=404 Media | date=2025-05-29 | url=https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.<ref>{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Koebler | first1=Jason | last2=Cox | first2=Joseph | title=Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime | website=404 Media | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.404media.co/police-said-they-surveilled-woman-who-had-an-abortion-for-her-safety-court-records-show-they-considered-charging-her-with-a-crime/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location | website=ACLU of Massachusetts | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions reevaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.<ref>{{cite web | title=I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref>

===Paused Federal Pilots and Systemic Data Sharing with Federal Agencies (August 2025)===
Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref> The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ensuring Local Compliance |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/ensuring-local-compliance |website=Flock Safety}}</ref>

This decision followed investigations revealing systematic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.<ref name="uwchr">{{cite web | title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement | website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | date=2025-10-21 | url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

*'''Front Door Access''': At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge | website=The Wenatchee World | date=2025-10-29 | url=https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/flock-safety-setting-allowed-u-s-border-patrol-access-to-wenatchee-valley-license-plate-data/article_8335941e-161c-594d-bc51-a56e0bd7251b.html | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Back Door Access''': A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.<ref name="uwchr" /><ref name="wenatchee" />

*'''Side Door Searches''': Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.<ref name="uwchr" /> A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information, they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Consumer Complaints about Business Practices===
Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot and reporting from legal advocacy groups detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

*'''Predatory Billing and Contract Issues''': Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a 30-day termination notice.<ref name="trustpilot">{{cite web | title=Flock Safety Reviews | website=Trustpilot | url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/flocksafety.com | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not provide a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij">{{cite web | title=Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras | website=Institute for Justice | date=2025-08-26 | url=https://ij.org/press-release/public-interest-law-firm-responds-to-flock-safety-pausing-federal-access-to-license-plate-reader-cameras/ | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

*'''Poor Camera Reliability and Performance''': Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor freight is 100% better."<ref name="trustpilot" /> A different reviewer stated that the quality declined significantly after March 2025, alleging the company "got rid of all their competent employees."<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''Inadequate Customer Support''': There are numerous complaints about poor customer service, particularly for smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" />

*'''High Cost and Poor Value''': Customers question the value of the service given its high annual cost. Reviews mention annual costs of $4,000 to $4,700 for a single camera, with one customer paying $8,700 over two years for a system they found ineffective.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Forbes reports that a single Flock license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the operating system subscription.<ref name="forbes" />

*'''Ethical and Legal Concerns''':: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stanley | first=Jay | title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The ACLU has also published analyses raising significant privacy concerns about the technology.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments | website=ACLU | date=2025-10-07 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===United States v. Martin (''11 Oct 2024'')===

In *United States v. Martin* (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on October 11, 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-martin-1056100094 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrantless searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction, but it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia; courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on warrant requirements for ALPR searches. <ref>{{cite web |last=Grosdidier |first=Pierre |title=Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant |url=https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=67513 |website=Texas Bar Journal |date=2025-04 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Public Records Lawsuits in Washington State (''26 Aug 2024'')===

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the Cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock’s AWS cloud are not “public records” under the Washington Public Records Act unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/901263718/City-of-Sedro-Woolley-v-Jose-Rodriguez-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgement |website=Scribd (court filing) |date=2025 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit or responsive filings alleging the cities violated the PRA; while the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images/data must be released as public records.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-pauses-flock-cameras-amid-public-records-lawsuits/ |website=HeraldNet |date=2025-09-10 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

===Norfolk Circuit Court Warrant Requirement (June 2024)===

In June 2024 a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrantless access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment. <ref>{{cite web |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/06/15/norfolk-judge-rejects-police-flock-camera-evidence-without-warrant/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |date=2024-06-15 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

That trial-court ruling was later '''reversed''' by the Virginia Court of Appeals in '''Commonwealth v. Church''' (Oct. 2025), which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings. <ref>{{cite web |title=Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion) |url=https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

For coverage and context see reporting on the trial-court suppression and the later appellate reversal. <ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Katie |title=Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant |url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant |website=GovTech |date=2024-06-17 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref>

==Additional Reading==

*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock: ALPR Location Map]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRs: Advocacy Group]
*[https://www.eff.org/issues/license-plate-readers EFF: License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/aclu-works-stop-license-plate-reader-surveillance ACLU: License Plate Reader Surveillance]
*[https://www.wired.com/tag/automated-license-plate-readers/ Wired: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.vice.com/en/topic/automated-license-plate-readers Vice: Automated License Plate Readers]
*[https://www.technologyreview.com/tag/surveillance/ MIT Technology Review: Surveillance]
*[https://www.flock-restrictions.org/ Flock Restrictions: Policy Tracking]
*[https://www.urban.org/features/how-police-use-technology Urban Institute: Police Technology Use]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Firefox introduces TOS

2025-11-06T01:35:54Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

In February 2025 Mozilla introduced [[Terms of service|terms of service]] (TOS) for the Firefox browser for the first time as well as an updated {{wplink|Privacy policy|privacy policy}}. These terms of service contain a section about the rights and permissions the user gives to Mozilla. This has caused concern among Firefox users due to how this section was initially phrased.

==Background==
On February 26th 2025, Mozilla announced they were introducing terms of service and updating their privacy policy for the Firefox web browser. Until February 2025, Mozilla always relied on Firefox's open source license (the [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ Mozilla Public License version 2.0]) for the browser and their public commitments. They say that by adding these terms, they want to make their commitments "abundantly clear and accessible."<ref name="tos-announce">
{{cite web
|first= Ajit
|last= Varma
|title= Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
|url= https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/
|website= Mozilla blog
|date=26 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227075559/https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref>
However, concerns arose regarding whether Firefox itself, rather than just Mozilla's online services (such as Firefox Sync or Mozilla VPN), would be subject to the company's Acceptable Use Policy, which restricts certain types of content. Mozilla's Acceptable Use Policy includes prohibitions on graphic depictions of sexuality, violence, and hate speech, which are standard for services like Firefox Sync but were not previously associated with the Firefox browser itself. While Mozilla later removed references to the Acceptable Use Policy in a revision, this initial concern fueled distrust.<ref name="acceptable-use">
{{cite web
|author=
|title= Acceptable Use Policy
|url=https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use
|website= Mozilla
|access-date=2 Mar 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250228075344/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/
|archive-date=28 Feb 2025
}}</ref>

==Questionable phrasing in the TOS and consumer response==
The new terms contained phrasing that has caused concern by users of Firefox and the reasoning for its inclusion in the privacy focused browser.<ref name="reddit-1">{{cite web
|author=
|title= Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
|url= https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1iyzmo6/introducing_a_terms_of_use_and_updated_privacy/
|website= Reddit - r/linux
|date=26 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
}}</ref><ref name="discourse">{{cite web
|author=
|title= Why does Mozilla now require a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" when entering information in Firefox?
|url= https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/why-does-mozilla-now-require-a-nonexclusive-royalty-free-worldwide-license-when-entering-information-in-firefox/140700
|website= Mozilla discourse
|date=26 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227171303/https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/why-does-mozilla-now-require-a-nonexclusive-royalty-free-worldwide-license-when-entering-information-in-firefox/140700
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref><ref name="lemmy">
{{cite web
|author=
|title= Mozilla Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox
|url= https://lemmy.world/post/26091770
|website= Lemmy
|date=26 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227171252/https://lemmy.world/post/26091770
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref><ref name="moz-connect">
{{cite web
|author=AshleyT
|title= Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox
|url= https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87949/highlight/true#M33725
|website= Mozilla connect
|date=26 Feb 2025
|access-date=28 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250228135428/https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87949/highlight/true#M33725
|archive-date=28 Feb 2025
}}</ref> Concerns center especially around the phrasing of terms outlined in the section titled "You Give Mozilla Certain Rights and Permissions".<ref name="TOS">
{{cite web
|author=
|title= Firefox Terms of Use
|url=https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
|website= Mozilla
|date=25 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227073459/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref>

This is what that section originally said:
<blockquote>
You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
</blockquote>
The vagueness of the terms resulted in users questioning how much of their data they were granting Mozilla a license to use, especially since the company puts a lot of emphasis on transparency and privacy on their manifesto.<ref name="manifesto">
{{cite web
|author=
|title= The Mozilla Manifesto Addendum; Pledge for a Healthy Internet
|url=https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
|website= Mozilla
|date=25 Feb 2025
|access-date=27 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227045402/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref> One notable concern is the possibility that license to user input could be used to train artificial intelligence tools. This became a concern since Mozilla has recently been working on AI tools.<ref name="orbit" />

===AI training concerns===

Mozilla's original TOU could have allowed AI training on user input. Mozilla's wording in their first round of TOS changes granted Mozilla a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" to "use" user input, without specifying clear limitations.<ref name="connect">{{cite web
|title= Re: Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox
|url= https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87949/highlight/true
|website= Mozilla Connect
|date=27 Feb 2025
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref>
Mozillla's vague writing caused concern among Firefox users that their input could be used for artificial intelligence training, especially given Mozilla's AI-related projects.<ref name="orbit">{{cite web
|title= Orbit by Mozilla
|url= https://orbitbymozilla.com/
|website= Mozilla AI
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> After backlash, Mozilla revised the TOU to clarify that data usage is restricted to user-requested actions.<ref name="tos-update">{{cite web
|title= An update on our Terms of Use
|url= https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
|website= Mozilla Blog
|date=28 Feb 2025
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref>

===Date of effect===
It is also worth noting that the announcement of the introduction of the TOS and new privacy policy was made in a blog post one day after the terms and privacy policy were originally set to take effect.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Firefox Terms of Use - Febuary 28 |url=https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250228023710/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ |archive-date=28 Feb 2025 |access-date=28 Feb 2025}}</ref> No other communication was made to users of the browser as of February 27th 2025. The terms of use page was then edited to read "Effective February 28, 2025"<ref name="TOS" /> following the update in the language.

===Change of Firefox's FAQ===
[[File:Firefox faq.png|thumb|Firefox FAQ wording changes]]
Mozilla's Terms of Use no longer explicitly state that the company does not and will never sell user data. Previously, Mozilla's FAQ included the statement, "Nope. Never have, never will," when addressing whether they sell user data. The section promising not to sell personal data<ref name="faq-old">{{cite web
|author=
|title= Firefox FAQ
|url= https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/
|website= Mozilla
|access-date=28 Feb 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250227214216/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/
|archive-date=27 Feb 2025
}}</ref> was quietly removed from their documentation.<ref name="github-tos">{{cite web
|title= Tos copy updates (fix #16016) (#16018)
|url= https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e
|website= GitHub
|date=28 Feb 2025
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref>

Before its removal, the section said:<blockquote>
''Does Firefox sell your personal data?''

''Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.''
</blockquote>
Another section Mozilla changed is removing part of the answer to the question "Is Firefox free?". This section concluded with the phrase "and we don't sell your personal data.".

Both of these were present in the FAQ until at least January 30th 2025.<ref name="faq">{{cite web
|author=
|title= Firefox older FAQ
|url= https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/
|website= Mozilla
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250130092351/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/
|archive-date=30 Jan 2025
}}</ref><ref name="github-faq">{{cite web
|author=
|title= Github commit showing TOS FAQ changes
|url= https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e
|website= Github
|access-date= 1 Mar 2025
|url-status=live
}}</ref>

Mozilla justified this change by pointing to evolving legal definitions of "data selling," particularly under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which defines "sale" broadly to include certain data-sharing arrangements. However, the revised Terms of Use do not explicitly prohibit Mozilla from selling user data in the future, leaving open the possibility of future monetization.<ref name="tos-update" />
Mozilla justified this by pointing to broad legal definitions under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which define "selling data" as any transfer of data for "valuable consideration," even if anonymized.<ref name="ccpa">
{{cite web
|title= CCPA Full Text
|url= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1798.140.#
|website= Legilature.ca.gov
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> However, the new Terms of Use do not explicitly prohibit Mozilla from selling user data in the future, meaning they could legally do so if they chose.<ref name="tos-update" />

==Mozilla's response==
[[File:Firefox-privacy-lawful-bases.png|thumb|Partial screenshot of the lawful basis section for data usage from the Firefox privacy policy.]]
Initially, Mozilla added an update to their initial blog post in an attempt to clarify the language of the terms of use.<ref name="tos-announce" />

This is what the update says:
<blockquote>
'''UPDATE''': We've seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn't use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.
</blockquote>
Notably, this update doesn't address the concerns relating to the broadness that can be attributed to the wording of the terms.

Mozilla's privacy policy contains fairly extensive and clear statements on how Mozilla uses user data. It does not explicitly mention artificial intelligence tools other than the ability to use third party chat assistants. The privacy policy clarifies that Mozilla has no access to these chats.

On February 28th, Mozilla updated the terms of use to address the concerns people were having. The section about rights and permissions given to Mozilla was reworded to be more clear:<blockquote>You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.</blockquote>As well as this, the new terms have removed the reference to the acceptable use policy.

Mozilla have also provided an explanation for why they changed their FAQ.<ref name="tos-update" /> They say this is because different legislation has different definitions of "sale of data"and this makes it uncertain on whether a business is legally considered to be selling data. Mozilla explicitly cites the California Consumer Privacy Act<ref name="ccpa" /> with regards to how existing privacy legislation defines the sale of data. <ref group="footnotes">Mozilla in the version of the CCPA they quoted on their update (see ''[https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ "An update on out terms of use"]'') a draf version of the CCPA. The difference in the definition used is the inclusion of "another bussiness" in the wording. [https://www.quippd.com/social/posts/2025/03/06/mozilla-quoted-an-incorrect-version-of-the-ccpa-in-their-terms-of-use-update.html "Mozilla Quoted an Incorrect Version of the CCPA in their Terms of Use update"].''Youssuff Quips'' </ref>

==Mozilla's Business Model & Potential CCPA Violations==
Before the Terms of Use update, Mozilla publicly stated that it did not & would never sell user data. However, under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), some of Mozilla's existing business practices may have legally qualified as "selling data." While there is no confirmed evidence that Mozilla violated the CCPA, their data-sharing practices placed them in a legally gray area.

===Potential CCPA Compliance Issues Before the TOU Update===
The CCPA defines "selling data" as: <blockquote>
'' “Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.''<ref name="ccpa" />
</blockquote>

*'''Search Engine Partnerships (Google, Bing, Yandex, etc.)''': Mozilla's largest revenue source comes from deals with search engines like Google, which pay Mozilla to be Firefox's default search provider.<ref>{{cite web
|title= Mozilla Foundation and Subsidiaries ; Independent Auditors’ Report, and Consolidated Financial Statement
|url= https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf
|website= Mozilla
|access-date=2 Mar 2025
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211174819/https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf
|archive-date=11 Feb 2025
}}. [[:File:Mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf|See file on the wiki]]
</ref>
These deals involve sending search query data to search partners. Under the CCPA, if Mozilla transmitted search data in exchange for financial compensation, this could be classified as a ''"sale of data."'' This is a practice that Mozilla had already been openly taking part in.

===Mozilla's Sponsored Ads & Potential CCPA Implications===

====How Mozilla’s Sponsored Ads Work====
Mozilla monetizes Firefox through advertising programs:
*'''Pocket Sponsored Stories''': Mozilla owns Pocket, which provides content recommendations. Mozilla shares aggregated data with ad platforms (such as Adzerk) so advertisers can track engagement.<ref name="pocket-sponsored">
{{cite web
|title= Pocket Sponsored Stories on New Tabs
|url= https://support.mozilla.org/kb/pocket-sponsored-stories-new-tabs
|website= Mozilla Support
|access-date=2 Mar 2025
}}</ref>

*'''Sponsored Shortcuts''': Mozilla displays paid website shortcuts on the New Tab page. Mozilla gets paid per user click & routes click data through a Mozilla-owned proxy service.<ref name="sponsored-shortcuts">
{{cite web
|title= Sponsored Shortcuts on the New Tab Page
|url= https://support.mozilla.org/kb/sponsored-shortcuts-new-tab
|website= Mozilla Support
|access-date=2 Mar 2025
}}</ref>

*'''Sponsored Suggestions in Search''': Mozilla processes search queries & shares de-identified interaction data with partners, including search engines and ad networks.<ref name="firefox-privacy" />

Mozilla says all data shared with advertisers is anonymized, aggregated, or de-identified before being disclosed.

====How this relates to Mozilla’s Privacy Policy====
Mozilla’s Privacy Policy states that user data is only shared in an aggregated or de-identified form.<ref name="mozilla-privacy">{{cite web
|title= Mozilla Privacy Policy
|url= https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/
|website= Mozilla
|access-date=2 Mar 2025
}}</ref> The Firefox Privacy Notice also confirms:<blockquote>''Mozilla processes interaction data (such as ad clicks) & shares de-identified information with partners. Partners cannot associate these interactions with an individual user.<ref name="firefox-privacy" />''</blockquote>This lines up with Mozilla's claim that it does not sell personal data under the CCPA.

====Potential CCPA Compliance Issues====

Mozilla's ad system does not clearly violate the CCPA, but it exists in a gray area because of:
*'''Valuable Consideration Clause''': Mozilla earns money from clicks on Sponsored Shortcuts, which may be considered a sale under the CCPA if user data has "value."

*'''Lack of a Clear "Do Not Sell" Option''': The CCPA requires an explicit "Do Not Sell My Data" button, but Mozilla bundles opt-out settings under "technical and interaction data." Mozilla's privacy policy page states ''"You can opt out of having your data processed for personalization or advertising purposes by turning off “technical and interaction data” on Desktop and Mobile at any time".''<ref name="firefox-privacy" /> Firefox does have this option in the privacy and security section of the settings as of version 135 (4th February 2025).<ref>https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-turn-do-not-track-feature?as=u&utm_source=inproduct</ref>

*'''Potential Re-identification of Data''': CCPA states that anonymized data can still be personal information if it can be linked to a user.<ref name="ccpa" />

While Mozilla tells users that advertisers cannot directly identify users, regulators may argue that user interactions still hold monetary value, which could require Mozilla to revise its privacy policy for full compliance.

===Legitimate Reasons for Mozilla Updating Its Terms of Use===
Mozilla's sudden change to its Terms of Use & Privacy Policy can be viewed as hedges to Mozilla's legal risks & exposure under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), rather than an admission of wrongdoing.

*'''Legal Definitions of "Selling Data" Under the CCPA Are Broad''': As noted above, the CCPA's definition encompasses many data-sharing practices that may not align with common understanding of "selling data".<ref name="ccpa" /> Even if Mozilla was not directly selling user data, its search partnerships, telemetry data sharing, & sponsored content could have been interpreted as data sales if Mozilla received any financial benefit from them, all of which were actions that Mozilla has already been transparent & upfront about.

*'''Mozilla's Search Engine Deals Could Be Considered Data Sales''': As mentioned earlier, these partnerships could legally qualify as data sales under the CCPA definition, despite being an existing part of Mozilla's business model that consumers are already aware of.<ref name="tos-announce" />

*'''Sponsored Content in Firefox's New Tab Page Involves Data Exchange''': Mozilla dReferencesisplays sponsored content and ads on the Firefox New Tab page, which may involve user interaction data being shared with advertisers.<ref name="tos-update" /> Even if the data is anonymized, the CCPA considers certain types of aggregated data as personal information if it can be linked back to users.<ref name="ccpa" />

By removing explicit guarantees such as "we never sell your data" & rewriting the Terms of Use, Mozilla eliminated legal ambiguity while maintaining its existing business model.

While the new terms of use does not confirm that Mozilla intends to sell user data, & puts its current practices in-line with California's Consumer Privacy Act, it no longer explicitly prohibits it, leaving open the possibility for future monetization.

==Community Concerns & Digging into the validity of them==
Mozilla's Terms of Use & Privacy Policy update led to loud public protest over them. Here is an analysis of the primary concerns raised by the Firefox community:

===Valid Concerns===
====Vague licensing language in the TOU====
Initially, Mozilla's TOU granted the company a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" to user input, which raised concerns about potential data ownership and usage rights.<ref name="connect">{{cite web
|title= Re: Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox
|url= https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87949/highlight/true
|website= Mozilla Connect
|date=27 Feb 2025
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> This was later revised after backlash.<ref name="tos-update" />

====Mozilla removed explicit language about not selling user data====
Mozilla's FAQ previously stated, "We don't and never will sell your personal data," but this was quietly removed from its website and documentation.<ref name="github-tos">{{cite web
|title= Tos copy updates (fix #16016) (#16018)
|url= https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e
|website= GitHub
|date=28 Feb 2025
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> Mozilla later stated that different legal jurisdictions, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), had vague definitions of "data selling," which led them to revise this wording.<ref name="tos-update" />

====Users were not notified before the TOU changes took effect====
Mozilla announced the new terms on February 26, 2025, but they had already taken effect by February 25, 2025.<ref name="tos-announce" />

====Lack of clarity on why Mozilla needs a license to user input====
Users questioned why Mozilla needed licensing rights over user input when browsers have worked for 25+ years without these terms.<ref name="connect" />
While the new TOU does not confirm that Mozilla intends to sell user data, it no longer explicitly prohibits it, leaving open the possibility for future monetization.

===Concerns Likely Based on Misinterpretation===
====Mozilla will log & track all user browsing data====
Some users assumed the TOU granted Mozilla unlimited access to browsing history.<ref name="connect" /> However, Mozilla's privacy policy still states that it does not store user browsing history or personal data beyond necessary telemetry.<ref name="tos-announce" />

====Mozilla's telemetry data collection doesn't seem to constitute a "sale" under the CCPA====
Firefox collects telemetry data by default, including interaction metrics (such as the number of open tabs, visited webpages, & search partner referrals) & technical data (such as OS version, hardware specs, and crash reports).<ref name="telemetry">{{cite web
|title= Telemetry collection and deletion
|url= https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid
|website= Mozilla Support
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> However, Mozilla clearly says that this data is only sent to Mozilla & does not explicitly mention sharing this with third parties<ref name="firefox-privacy">{{cite web
|title= Firefox Privacy Notice
|url= https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice
|website= Mozilla
|access-date=1 Mar 2025
}}</ref> Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a "sale" requires data to be transferred to a third party in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration.<ref name="ccpa" />
Since Mozilla does not explicitly transfer telemetry data to third parties, it is unlikely to be classified as a "sale" under the CCPA. Users can opt out of telemetry data collection, and Mozilla deletes previously collected data within 30 days of opting out.<ref name="telemetry" />

Mozilla tried to clarify where they stand on data privacy, but the way they've written their terms as well as the manner in which they communicated them has resulted in user protest & distrust.

==Update: Mozilla removed controversial license from firefox's ToS (June 10th 2025)==
On June 10th, 2025, [[Mozilla]] changed their [[firefox]]'s [[terms of service]] for unknown reasons<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mozilla Firefox Terms of Service |url=https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-give-mozilla-certain-rights-and-permissions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251007184549/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-give-mozilla-certain-rights-and-permissions |archive-date=2025-10-07 |access-date=2025-10-22 |website=Mozilla.org}}</ref>, there were no announcements nor coverage on this matter. The motives and the reason why it is removed are currently unclear as of writing. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20250227004713/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ original] and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20250328021454/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ fixed] versions were last seen before June 10th 2025.

==See also==
*[[Mozilla]]
==Footnotes==
<references group="footnotes" />
==References==

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Firefox]]
<references />

Anker Battery Bank Recall

2025-11-06T01:33:00Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

{{Stub}}
On June 12, 2025, Anker issued a recall in the USA for a specific brand of battery bank after 19 incidents of fire or explosion.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/anker-recalls-powercore-10000-power-banks-for-burning-or-exploding-learn-how-to-get-a-free-replacement/|title=Anker Recalls PowerCore 10000 Power Banks for Fires and Explosions. Get a Free Replacement|first=Omar|last=Gallaga|date=2025-06-13|work=CNET|access-date=2025-06-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250614124735/https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/anker-recalls-powercore-10000-power-banks-for-burning-or-exploding-learn-how-to-get-a-free-replacement/|archive-date=2025-06-14|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally in 2024 Anker issued a recall for 3 models of power-bank, citing safety concerns. <ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Anker Innovations Recalls A1642/A1647/A1652 |url=https://www.anker.com/a1642-a1647-a1652-recall |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250722184037/https://www.anker.com/a1642-a1647-a1652-recall |archive-date=22 Jul 2025 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=anker.com}}</ref>
==Background==
{{Placeholder box|Information about the product/service history to provide the necessary context surrounding the incident}}

==2024 Recalls==
A batch of batteries produced from January 3, 2024, to September 17, 2024 where suspected to be faulty prompting Anker to recall 3 models of battery bank. <ref name=":1" />

The effected models where:

*Anker 334 MagGo Battery (PowerCore 10K), Model: A1642.
*Anker Power Bank (20,000mAh, 22.5W, Built-In USB-C Cable), Model: A1647.
*Anker MagGo Power Bank (10,000mAh, 7.5W, Stand), Model: A1652.

==PowerCore 10000 recall==
On June 12, 2025 Anker Innovations Limited, of China recalled ''PowerCore 10000'' (model A1263) power banks. These units where recalled because "The lithium-ion battery in the power bank can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers" this recall effected "About 1,158,000" units. <ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=USCPSC |date=June 12, 2025 |title=More than One Million Anker Power Banks Recalled Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Manufactured by Anker Innovations |url=https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/More-than-One-Million-Anker-Power-Banks-Recalled-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Manufactured-by-Anker-Innovations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250729123925/https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/More-than-One-Million-Anker-Power-Banks-Recalled-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Manufactured-by-Anker-Innovations |archive-date=29 Jul 2025 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=cpsc.gov}}</ref>

===Reported Injures===
Anker revived 19 reports of fire/explosions, "This includes two reports of minor burn injuries not requiring medical attention and 11 reports of property damage totaling over $60,700" <ref name=":0" />

==Anker's response==

===Terms of Service===
Anker's ToS has a concerning assumption of risk clause:<blockquote>7. Assumption of Risk; Release

You knowingly and freely assume all risk when using Anker’s Services. '''You, on behalf of yourself, your personal representatives, and your heirs, voluntarily agree to release,''' waive, discharge, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify Anker and its owners, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, consultants, representatives, sublicensees, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, and related entities, including but not limited to Anker Innovations Limited, Fantasia Trading LLC, Shenzhen Oceanwing Smart Innovations Technology Co., Ltd and Anker Technology (UK) Ltd. (collectively, the "Anker Companies") '''from any and all claims, actions, or losses for bodily injury, property damage, wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of privacy, or other damages or harm, whether to you or third parties, that may result from your use of Anker’s Services.''' <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-06-30 |title=Anker-EN terms of service |url=https://www.anker.com/policies/terms-of-service |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250722194230/https://www.anker.com/policies/terms-of-service |archive-date=22 Jul 2025 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=anker.com}}</ref></blockquote>

==Lawsuit==
{{Placeholder box|If applicable, add any information regarding litigation around the incident here.

===Claims===
Main claims of the suit.

===Rebuttal===
The response of the company or counterclaims.

===Outcome===
The outcome of the suit, if any.}}

==Consumer response==
{{Placeholder box|Summary and key issues of prevailing sentiment from the consumers and commentators that can be documented via articles, emails to support, reviews and forum posts.}}

==References==
{{reflist}}
*https://www.anker.com/a1263-recall
*https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/More-than-One-Million-Anker-Power-Banks-Recalled-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Manufactured-by-Anker-Innovations
[[Category:Anker]]

Age verification

2025-11-06T01:28:04Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Driving users towards smaller and completely unregulated offerings */ added archive url + date to a cite

{{Incomplete}}
{{See also|Forced identification|De-anonymization}}

'''Age Verification''' (AV), also referred to as '''Age Affirmation''' (AA), is the process in where a business requires some form of identification to verify your age. This is usually done for more explicit or mature content. This practice has been widely spreading since the [[UK Online Safety Act|UK's Online Safety Act (OSA)]] has passed; requiring all individuals to verify themselves before accessing mature content. Ways of checking age include, but are not limited to: checking for a valid credit card, facial age estimation tools, government-issued ID, biometric data, account history behavior, and more.

==How it works==
When accessing a platform or website that may contain content not suitable for all audiences may force you to register for the platform along with verifying your age by one of the methods mentioned previously. Sites that likely don't use any form of account system will probably have a popup instead requiring you to verify your age before even serving the content you were trying to access.

==Why it is a problem==

===Privacy===
Having companies easily able to identify you means they can track you more efficiently and sell that shared profile to other companies such as ad agencies that then start targeting you specifically.

Governments can also more easily track online movements and find out who you are. Saying something that may go against their own agenda may end up with a police raid and heavy interrogation and prison time.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liu |first=John |date=2025-06-20 |title=China tightens internet controls with new centralized form of virtual ID |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/20/tech/china-censorship-internet-id-hnk-intl#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThis%20is%20a%20state%2Dled,an%20infrastructure%20of%20digital%20totalitarianism.%E2%80%9D |access-date=2025-09-04 |work=CNN}}</ref>

===Censorship===
Certain topics, such as adult content, politics, and LGBT+ topics, will likely be unfairly censored by the governing body or company that has a say on what platform has the '''potential''' to be inappropriate for minors or other age groups.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Strict Age Verification Laws: Balancing Content Restriction and Educational Rights |url=https://www.thinkacademy.ca/blog/strict-age-verification-laws-impact-k12-education/#:~:text=Impact%20on%20K12,affect%20these%20groups |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=Think Academy}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Kelley |first=Jason |last2=Mackey |first2=Aaron |last3=Mullin |first3=Joe |date=2024-02-15 |title=Don’t Fall for the Latest Changes to the Dangerous Kids Online Safety Act |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Platforms that host this type of content may also be more proactive in deleting/hiding posts that may get them in trouble or fined by laws or policies by local governments, leading to a more censored internet where opinions are streamlined to fit a set narrative or outlook.<ref name=":0" />

===Increased inequality and denial of service===
Some stores, such as grocery stores, prohibit young people from viewing their web sites or using [[loyalty cards]], which provide discounts and digital coupons. Age verification means that young people and families where the young person does the shopping pay more for essentials like food.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pell |first=Miranda |date=25 Oct 2024 |title=Tesco, Lidl and Sainsbury's shoppers issued warning over little-known 'age limit' rules |url=https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/tesco-lidl-sainsburys-shoppers-issued-30233318 |access-date=20 Sep 2025 |work=Manchester evening news}}</ref> Those who do not have ID, or do not chose to use it (for instance, those who fear domestic violence, or are members of a group subject to persecution) may also be locked out or have to pay more.

===Storage of private and biometric Information by age verification service providers===
A study commissioned by the Australian government found that age verification service providers accumulate a concerning amount of personal information, sometimes even biometric in nature, even when that was not necessary to provide the age verification service.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Meineck |first=Sebastian |date=2025-09-03 |title=Anbieter von Alterskontrollen horten biometrische Daten [Age Verification Providers are hoarding biometric Data] |url=https://netzpolitik.org/2025/australisches-gutachten-anbieter-von-alterskontrollen-horten-biometrische-daten/ |access-date=2025-09-03 |website=Netzpolitik.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Meineck |first=Sebastion |date=2025-09-03 |title=Anbieter von Alterskontrollen horten biometrische Daten [Google Translate English Version] |url=https://netzpolitik-org.translate.goog/2025/australisches-gutachten-anbieter-von-alterskontrollen-horten-biometrische-daten/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp |access-date=2025-09-03 |website=Netzpolitik.org}}</ref>

===Driving users towards smaller and completely unregulated offerings===
Big platforms can be regulated and forced to comply with applicable laws since they need to have infrastructure such as servers in all major markets. Only these will be affected by the age restriction requirement.

However, users who do not wish to compromise their privacy or who are not of age will then go looking towards smaller niche platforms, often in other regions not affected by the regulation or the darknet.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Kaleta |first=Miroslav |date=2025-08-20 |title=The Cost of Data Privacy Negligence (And How to Avoid It) |url=https://countly.com/blog/data-privacy-negligence#:~:text=2.%20Losing%20Customer,IBM%20Report. |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=Countly Blog}}</ref> With these offerings, there is little to no leverage with regards to removal of illegal content. Increased exposure to illegal content can then lead to both a strengthening of illegal content providers<ref>{{Cite web |last=Branley |first=Dawn |last2=Covey |first2=Judith |date=2016-06-06 |title=Is exposure to online content depicting risky behavior related to viewers' own risky behavior offline? |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=ScienceDirect}}</ref> and significantly increased danger to minors, who may not yet be able to differentiate between legal and illegal content as well as an adult.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04 |title=Potential risks of content, features, and functions: The science of how social media affects youth |url=https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/youth-social-media-2024 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240416042251/https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/youth-social-media-2024 |archive-date=2024-04-16 |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=American Psychological Association}}</ref>

===Increased damage from data breaches===
Platforms which implement age checks that require sensitive information such as a government-issued ID will likely be more of a target for cyber criminals.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-02 |title=Cybercriminals Target These Industries the Most – Here’s Why and How to Stay Safe |url=https://brandefense.io/blog/cybercriminals-target-these-industries/#:~:text=The%20Most%20Vulnerable%20Industries%20to,information%20stored%20within%20their%20networks. |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=Brandefense}}</ref> As more platforms comply with the age checks, it becomes more likely that a data breach on at least one of these platforms can reveal extremely sensitive information. In the case of a data breach, it can be catastrophic if users' sensitive information were exposed, which can likely result in identity theft.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Popov |first=Cristina |date=2023-03-22 |title=Why breaches can affect you long after they occur |url=https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/why-breaches-can-affect-you-long-after-they-occur#:~:text=%232%3A%20Breaches%20can,for%20online%20accounts. |access-date=2025-09-04 |website=Bitdefender}}</ref>

Platforms already experience major losses and consumer distrust from data breaches that reveal information less sensitive than government-issued IDs or biometric data.<ref name=":1" /> A data breach involving information this sensitive will seriously damage a business, and the users even more so. As stated previously, users who foresee these privacy risks will turn away from platforms which implement the policy, and towards niche platforms.

==Examples==
*[[YouTube]]'s Age verification and account estimation algorithm. (See [[Youtubes Requirement for Government ID]] for more information)

*[[Spotify]]'s Age affirmation for MA rated songs and content.

*[[Discord]]'s Age verification for accounts determining what eligible servers are available.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Common terms]]

Ad block

2025-11-06T01:21:40Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Consumer impact summary */ fixed cite error

[[Wikipedia:ad blocking|'''Ad blocking''']] Is a form of user customization of information presentation. For instance, to selectively not display information of little interest to the user, or content the user deems harmful or offensive, or to conserve resources by not processing some information. Blocking ads can increase security, can improve accessibility, It can also speed up devices and make them more reliable (decrease network traffic, decrease processor/memory usage).

==Consumer impact summary==
[[Advertising overload|Advertising is pervasive online]], and increasingly showing up in devices (e.g., [[Samsung ads in refrigerators|refrigerators]], [[Stellantis in-car advertisements|cars]], operating systems, televisions). Ad block can help consumers [[Right to own|own their own devices]] by controlling what the devices do. Advertisements can be dangerous, by misleading or distracting the user, and by tracking or damaging the device. Many sources, including US government agencies, suggest ad block as a way of enhancing security. There are efforts to use copyright law (e.g., DMCA/spotify/revanced, and German court case) to force consumers to play ads or run other programs on devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Claburn |first=Thomas |date=2025-08-15 |title=No more Blocktoberfest? German court throws book at ad blockers |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/german_court_ruling_ad_blocking/ |website=The Register}}</ref>

==Ad Blocker Examples==
Some of the add-ons / extensions / plug-ins below are not necessarily ad-blocking software but do contribute to blocking advertisements or reduce or eliminate the amount of data you share online.

===<big>Internet Browsers</big>===
A for Android, i for iOS, L for Linux, W for Windows

Browser base: C for Chromium, F for Firefox

If a browser is not listed "officially" for an add-on in the table below but shares the "Based on" attribute with a browser that is, it may (but is not guaranteed to) work with that browser.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!
!Based on
!"Do Not Track" feature
!DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials
![https://noscript.net/ NoScript]
![https://privacybadger.org/ Privacy Badger]
![https://ublockorigin.com/ uBlock Origin]
!
|-
|'''[https://brave.com/ Brave]'''
|C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://www.google.com/chrome/ Chrome]'''
|C
|
|
|L, W
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://duckduckgo.com/app DuckDuckGo]'''
|C
|A
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://microsoft.com/edge Edge]'''
|C
|
|
|L, W
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://www.firefox.com/ Firefox]'''
|F
|A, L, W
|A, L, W
|A, L, W
|A, L, W
|A, L, W
|
|-
|'''[https://www.firefox.com/an/channel/desktop/developer/ Firefox Developer Edition]'''
|F
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|
|-
|'''[https://www.opera.com/ Opera]'''
|C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://www.apple.com/safari/ Safari]'''
| -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://vivaldi.com/ Vivaldi]'''
|C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''[https://www.waterfox.net/ Waterfox]'''
|F
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|L, W
|
|}

==Further Reading==

*[[Advertising overload]]

==References==
<references />

[[:Category:Common terms]]

Category:CS1 errors: unrecognized parameter

2025-11-06T01:19:32Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Category:CS1 errors: missing name

2025-11-06T01:14:25Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Category:CS1 errors: external links

2025-11-06T01:05:18Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Category:CS1 errors: archive-url

2025-11-06T01:04:55Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Category:CS1 errors: URL

2025-11-06T01:04:34Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Category:CS1 errors

2025-11-06T01:04:10Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: Created page with "Category:Hidden categories"

[[Category:Hidden categories]]

Flock license plate readers

2025-11-06T00:29:59Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* City rejections and terminations */ fixed cite error

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety |access-date=6 Dec 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5 |archive-date=6 Dec 2024 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 states in the U.S.A.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> According to the company's own marketing materials, Flock performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/iVsBZ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=19 Jun 2024 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619112629/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |archive-date=19 Jun 2024 |access-date=25 Aug 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like {{Wplink|Palantir Technologies|Palantir}}.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=11 Sep 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 40,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://deflock.me/ |title=Find Nearby ALPRs |work=DeFlock |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250728224453/https://deflock.me/|archive-date=2025-07-28 |url-status=live}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle Fingerprints"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |date=23 Jul 2025 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250814053755/https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |archive-date=14 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics |title=Privacy & Ethics |work=Flock Safety |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref name="norfolk">{{Cite web |last=King |first=Dan |date=6 Feb 2024 |title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed |url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717001536/https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |archive-date=17 Jul 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Institute for Justice}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/DSqUM |archive-date=26 Oct 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2024 |title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional |url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250826013458/https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media}}</ref>

====="Anonymized Data"=====
While Flock's Terms and Conditions define "Anonymized Data" as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref name=":1" />

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2018-2024 demonstrate that "anonymized" vehicle location data can be re-identified with high accuracy. A 2022 study showed researchers could re-identify drivers from raw vehicle network data with 97% accuracy by exploiting inter-dependencies in sensor measurements.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404822002139 |title=Privacy-preserving vehicle trajectory matching |website=ScienceDirect |date=2022 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref> Research published in the Journal of Computer Science and Technology (2022) found that even three to four location points can uniquely identify individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sun |first=She |last2=Ma |first2=Shuai |last3=Song |first3=Jing-He |last4=Yue |first4=Wen-Hai |last5=Lin |first5=Xue-Lian |last6=Ma |first6=Tiejun |date=2022 |title=Experiments and Analyses of Anonymization Mechanisms for Trajectory Data Publishing |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |journal=Journal of Computer Science and Technology |doi=10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 USD per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279 |title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost? |work=City of Campbell |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |first=Jason |last=Koebler |date=6 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf |title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers |work=American Civil Liberties Union |date=2024 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states |title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States |work=Yes You Can Go |date=2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===
While marketed as "license plate readers,"' Flock cameras use what the company calls "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology which tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date= |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=usurped |access-date=26 Oct 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning "images into actionable evidence — no plate required."<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Plate Readers |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/D9JGD |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' and allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Patent for person identification by race and physical characteristics==
A U.S. Patent granted to Flock Group Inc. in August 2022 reveals the company has developed and patented technology to identify and classify people based on race, gender, and other physical characteristics.<ref name="patent11416545">{{Cite web |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf |title=System and Method for Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |date=16 Aug 2022 |access-date=21 Jan 2025 |format=PDF |first1=Garrett |last1=Langley |first2=Matt |last2=Feury }}</ref> Patent US 11,416,545 B1 describes a system that goes beyond vehicle identification to analyze human subjects captured in surveillance footage.

According to the patent documentation, when the system identifies a human being in captured footage, it uses neural network modules specifically configured to classify people by "male, female, race, etc." The patent further describes using additional neural networks to identify clothing types, estimate height and weight, and other physical characteristics of individuals.<ref name="patent11416545" /> The system can then store this classification data in searchable databases, allowing law enforcement to query for people based on these physical attributes.

The patent shows that Flock's technology is designed to create comprehensive profiles that can track individuals across multiple camera locations by matching physical characteristics. While Flock publicly markets its products as ''"license plate readers"'' focused on vehicles, this patent demonstrates the company has developed capabilities for detailed human surveillance and classification by protected characteristics including race and gender.<ref name="patent11416545" />

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that this technology could enable discriminatory policing practices and racial profiling at scale.{{Citation needed}} The ability to search for people by race or other physical characteristics across a network of thousands of cameras is a large expansion of surveillance capabilities beyond what is typically disclosed in Flock's public marketing materials.{{Citation needed}}

==Legal challenges==
===Norfolk federal lawsuit===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />

Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.

===State regulatory landscape===
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>

California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

==Notable incidents==

====Illinois audit findings (2024-2025)====
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced in late August 2024 that Flock Safety violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate data for immigration enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safetys-response-to-illinois-lpr-data-use-and-out-of-state-sharing-concerns|title=Flock Safety's Response to Illinois LPR Data Use and Out-of-State Sharing Concerns|website=Flock Safety|date=2024-08-25|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies revealed unauthorized pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, violating Illinois law prohibiting data sharing for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, and abortion-related matters. Following the audit, 47 out-of-state agencies were removed from access to Illinois data.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-pledges-changes-after-illinois-data-sharing-accusation|title=Flock Pledges Changes After Illinois Data-Sharing Accusation|website=Government Technology|date=2024-08-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Mount Prospect, Illinois reported 262 immigration-related license plate reader searches in just the first few months of 2025. A Palos Heights detective shared Flock login credentials with a DEA agent who conducted 28 unauthorized searches of Oak Park ALPR data explicitly labeled "immigration violation."<ref name="dea">{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====California violations (2015-2025)====
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27|title=California cops are breaking surveillance laws|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-07-23}}</ref>.

A 2023 EFF investigation found 71 California police agencies in 22 counties illegally shared data with out-of-state law enforcement. San Francisco Police Department alone allowed 1.6 million illegal searches by out-of-state agencies from 2024-2025.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/|title=SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-09-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The California Attorney General filed the first enforcement action against the City of El Cajon in 2025 for sharing with 26 states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out|title=Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data|website=California DOJ|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===False positive incidents===

====Families detained at gunpoint====
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740|website=KOAT|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

ALPR systems often misread license plates according to multiple investigations, leading to hardship & legal trouble for innocent civilians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/human-toll-alpr-errors|title=The Human Toll of ALPR Errors|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-11-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents===

In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife's movements over four months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Multiple other documented cases include Las Vegas Metro Officer Christopher Young arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases, and Riverside County Deputy Eric Piscatella pleading guilty in February 2024 to seven counts of misusing sheriff's department databases to stalk a woman he met at Coachella.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/02/16/las-vegas-police-officer-arrested-reportedly-stalking-ex-fiancee/?outputType=amp|title=Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée|website=FOX5 Vegas|date=2024-02-16|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Abortion and reproductive healthcare tracking===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They conducted searches across 83,000+ Flock cameras nationwide with the explicit reason: "had an abortion, search for female." The search accessed cameras across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2025/06/13/after-finding-fetal-remains-north-texas-cops-used-camera-network-to-search-for-woman/|title=After finding fetal remains, North Texas cops used camera network to search for woman|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-13|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down|title=She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Federal agency access===
Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains a $6.1 million contract giving 9,000+ ICE officers access to the Vigilant Solutions ALPR database containing over 5 billion location data points.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data|title=Documents Reveal ICE Using Driver Location Data From Local Police for Deportations|website=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The Drug Enforcement Administration operates a National License Plate Reader Program with over 10,000 license plate readers shared throughout the United States. 404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref name="dea" />

===Illegal Camera Installations===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

====='''Evanston, IL'''=====
Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city. The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment. Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=2025-09-25 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

'''0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:''' Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.146% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025-06-21|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velez |first=Abigail |date=2025-06-04 |title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate |url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CBS Austin}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Arizona deployments===
Sedona, Arizona became the first Arizona city to completely terminate its Flock Safety contract in September 2025 after citizen backlash. The city had installed 11 cameras in June 2025 without prior public notice at a cost of $51,146 for the first year. The council voted 5-1 to pause the program, then unanimously 7-0 on September 9 to permanently terminate after Flock CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company had been sharing data with federal agencies. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog called Flock "not an honorable company" for the conflicting data-sharing claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://westvalleyfamilies.substack.com/p/sedona-pulls-the-plug-on-flock-safety|title=Sedona Pulls the Plug on Flock Safety|website=West Valley Families|date=2025-09-10|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2025-09-11/sedona-council-permanently-ends-license-plate-camera-program|title=Sedona council permanently ends license plate camera program|website=KNAU|date=2025-09-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Flagstaff deployed 32 Flock cameras in summer 2024 at a cost of $143,100 annually. By September 2025, a petition signed by 25+ residents demanded cancellation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-09-01/after-sedona-paused-flock-safety-camera-system-flagstaff-is-considering-the-same-issue|title=After Sedona paused Flock Safety camera system, Flagstaff is considering the same issue|website=KJZZ|date=2025-09-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

University of Arizona contracted with Flock in February 2025 for 54 ALPR cameras at $160,000 annually. Students and faculty launched a "Deflock Tucson" campaign citing concerns about tracking international students and potential data sharing with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azluminaria.org/2025/09/15/ua-students-and-faculty-question-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-on-campus/|title=UA students and faculty question use of Flock Safety cameras on campus|website=AZ Luminaria|date=2025-09-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Casa Grande approved a $10 million "Safe City Initiative" in September 2025 including 100 license plate readers. Chief Mark McCrory reported the current 22 license plate readers led to 212 stolen vehicles identified and 168 arrests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.inmaricopa.com/we-mapped-all-flock-cameras/|title=We mapped the city's Flock cameras|website=InMaricopa|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Despite documented deployments across Arizona including Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe, Surprise, Youngtown, Litchfield Park, and Yuma, the state has no ALPR-specific regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azmirror.com/2019/07/08/how-do-automated-license-plate-readers-work/|title=How do automated license plate readers work?|website=Arizona Mirror|date=2019-07-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

==Security vulnerabilities==
In 2025, Flock Safety reported security vulnerabilities in its devices and submitted them to MITRE for inclusion in the National Vulnerability Database, including issues such as hard-coded credentials and improper access controls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-05 |title=Gunshot Detection and License Plate Reader Security Alert |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/gunshot-detection-and-license-plate-reader-security-alert |website=Flock Safety}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=CVE-2025-59403 : The Flock Safety Android Collins application (aka com.flocksafety.android.collin |url=https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2025-59403/ |website=CVEdetails.com}}</ref> Similar security concerns have affected other ALPR systems, including exposure of default passwords and unencrypted data storage.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Quintin |first=Cooper |date=28 Oct 2015 |title=License Plate Readers Exposed! How Public Safety Agencies Responded to Major Vulnerabilities in Vehicle Surveillance Tech |url=https://www.eff.org/ur/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

This represents one of several major security disclosures in the past decade. In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented more than 100 ALPR cameras accessible on the open internet, often without passwords or proper configuration.<ref name=":4" /> A more serious documented breach occurred in 2019, when Perceptics, LLC, a subcontractor for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed approximately 105,000 license plate images and 184,000 traveler facial images.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident During a 2019 Biometric Pilot |url=https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf}}</ref>

==Government accountability and oversight==

===State audit findings===
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a "hot list" when the image was made.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |website=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf |title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data |website=New Jersey State Police |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

A Government Technology analysis found that agencies often fail to audit ALPR systems regularly, leaving them "open to abuse by neglecting to institute sufficient oversight."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/data/alpr-audit-takeaways-what-we-learned-about-policy-gaps |title=ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps |website=Government Technology |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===Cost-benefit analysis===
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report |website=Arizona Department of Transportation |date=1 Jun 2008 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail) |website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice |date=1 May 2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts — a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf |title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ |website=NCRIC |date=2021 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: [https://deflock.me/map ALPR Map | DeFlock]

====Cease and desist to DeFlock.me====
DeFlock.me is a website allowing users to log and view the locations of ALPRs, such as Flock products. On 30 January 2025, Flock sent a cease and desist notice to the owner of DeFlock demanding the name of the website be changed to exclude the company's brand name. The letter also stated that "the Website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks [...]" which Flock alleged "[...] provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Matz |first=Sarah M. |title=2025 01 31 DEFLOCK CD final |url=https://www.eff.org/files/2025/02/26/2025_01_31_deflock_cd_ex-3.pdf |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=30 Jan 2025 |access-date=27 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |format=PDF}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Automatic license plate readers]]
[[Category:Flock Safety]]

Whistle pet tracker shutdown IoT fail

2025-11-06T00:20:25Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Acquisition and shutdown announcement */ replaced duplicated cites

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tractive, Mars Petcare, Whistle Labs
|StartDate=2025-07-28
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Pet tracking devices
|ArticleType=Incident
|Type=Planned Obsolescence, Service Termination
|Description=Whistle pet trackers will cease functioning on August 31, 2025, following Tractive's acquisition of the company from Mars Petcare
}}Whistle pet trackers will cease functioning on August 31, 2025, following Tractive's acquisition of the company from Mars Petcare.

==Background==
Whistle Labs was founded in 2012 as a developer of GPS enabled pet tracking & health monitoring devices.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_(company)|title=Whistle (company)|publisher=Wikipedia|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The company marketed its products as ''"Fitbit for dogs,"'' offering activity tracking, GPS location services, & health monitoring ability.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/31/whistle-acquired-by-mars/|title=Whistle's 'Fitbit for dogs' acquired by Mars Petcare|publisher=TechCrunch|date=2016-03-31|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Mars Petcare, a subsidiary of Mars Inc., acquired Whistle in April 2016 for approximately $117 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/mars-said-to-spend-117m-to-acquire-whistle-s-fitbit-for-dogs|title=Pet Food Maker Mars Spends $117 Million to Acquire Whistle's 'Fitbit for Dogs'|publisher=Bloomberg|date=2016-04-01|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Under Mars ownership, Whistle expanded its product line to include models such as the GO, GO Explore, Switch, FIT, & Health trackers, with retail prices ranging from $100 to $199.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://aorkuler.com/blogs/blog/whistle-pet-tracker-2024-product-description|title=Whistle Pet Tracker 2024: Products Description|publisher=Aorkuler|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive, an Austrian company founded in 2012, operates as a competitor in the pet GPS tracking market, offering similar location and health monitoring services across 175 countries.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/blog/en/press/tractive-acquires-whistle|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Tractive|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Acquisition and shutdown announcement==
On July 28, 2025, Tractive announced its acquisition of Whistle from Mars Petcare.<ref name=":1" /> Financial terms were not disclosed, though a webpage article that seems AI generated values the deal in the ''"tens of millions."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webpronews.com/tractive-acquires-whistle-pet-trackers-obsolete-by-august-2025/|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle: Pet Trackers Obsolete by August 2025|publisher=WebProNews|date=2025-07-29|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Take this with a shaker of salt.

Alongside the acquisition announcement, Tractive said that all Whistle devices would permanently stop working on August 31, 2025, giving users 33 days notice.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.whistle.com/blogs/news/whistle-joins-the-tractive-family|title=Whistle joins the Tractive Family|publisher=Whistle|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The shutdown affects all Whistle product models and will result in:

*Complete loss of GPS tracking functionality
*Inability to access the Whistle mobile application
*Permanent loss of all historical pet health and activity data
*Obsolescence of all Whistle hardware accessories and chargers

Users have been informed that pet health data collected over years "will not be transferred to the replacement Tractive devices" due to what the company describes as "different algorithms that would not be compatible with Tractive's systems."<ref name=":0" />

===Tractive's response===
Tractive has offered a replacement program providing free GPS tracker devices to affected Whistle customers. The program includes:<ref name=":0" />

*One free Tractive GPS tracker (valued at $49.99-$99.00) per Whistle device
*Transfer of remaining subscription time to Tractive service
*Two months free service for non-subscribers who purchase a new plan
*Deadline of September 30, 2025, to claim replacements

The company justified the shutdown by stating that ''"maintaining and developing two separate ecosystems—devices, apps, and software—doubles the complexity and could limit the quality of service and innovation."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/blog/en/press/tractive-acquires-whistle|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Tractive|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive CEO Michael Hurnaus characterized the acquisition as enabling the company to ''"deliver new features and improvements faster, more reliably, and with greater impact for all users—including former Whistle customers."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tractive-acquires-whistle-mars-petcare-110000346.html|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Yahoo Finance|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Consumer impact==
Both Whistle & Tractive devices require active subscriptions to function. The subscription fees cover cellular data costs necessary for GPS tracking.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amazon.com/Whistle-100-00500-00-GPS-Pet-Tracker/dp/B015DV0O9C|title=Whistle GPS Pet Tracker|publisher=Amazon|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/en/c/plans|title=Tractive GPS Tracker Plans|publisher=Tractive|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Without an active subscription, neither device can perform location tracking or health monitoring functions.

===Subscription cost comparison===
Prior to the shutdown, Whistle subscription plans cost:
*Monthly: $9.95 per month
*Yearly: $8.25 per month when paid annually (approximately $99 per year)
*Some older plans: As low as $6.95 per month<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chewy.com/whistle-3-dog-cat-gps-tracker/dp/138368|title=Whistle 3 Dog & Cat GPS Tracker|publisher=Chewy|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive subscription plans cost:
*Monthly: $10-12 per month (availability varies by country)
*Yearly: $5-9 per month when paid annually ($60-108 per year)
*Multi-year plans: As low as $5 per month<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/en/c/plans|title=Tractive Subscription Plans|publisher=Tractive|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Subscription costs are comparable.'''

===Non-financial consumer impacts===
Despite Tractive providing free replacement devices & similar subscription pricing, there are several areas of harm caused by the bricking of older devices:

'''Data loss''': All historical pet health data collected over years '''cannot be transferred to Tractive's platform''', affecting users who rely on this information for veterinary care decisions, particularly for pets with chronic conditions.<ref name=":0" />

'''Feature reduction''': Whistle's specialized behavioral monitoring capabilities for tracking licking, scratching, and sleep quality are not available on Tractive devices, potentially affecting early detection of health issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.walmart.com/ip/Whistle-Go-Explore-Dog-GPS-Tracking-Device-and-Pet-Health-Monitoring-System-Grey-Fits-Most-Collars/2542522231|title=Whistle Go Explore Dog GPS Tracking Device|publisher=Walmart|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Significantly reduced battery life''': Users report Whistle devices lasting 10-15 days per charge compared to Tractive's 2-7 days/.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rover.com/blog/whistle-go-explore-review/|title=Whistle Go Explore Review|publisher=Rover|date=2024-09-03|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/tractive-dog-gps-tracker-review|title=Tractive Dog GPS Tracker 2025 Review|publisher=Dogster|date=2025-01-07|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Accessory obsolescence''': All Whistle-specific hardware including chargers, collar attachments, & accessories become unusable, requiring additional replacement purchases beyond the tracker itself.

'''Inadequate transition period''': The 33-day notice period has been criticized as insufficient for users to research alternatives, claim replacements, & adapt to new systems, particularly affecting elderly users and households with multiple pets.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/wearables/whistle-pet-trackers-are-shutting-down-next-month-212828325.html|title=Whistle pet trackers are shutting down next month|publisher=Engadget|date=2025-07-30|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Choice elimination''': The acquisition removes a major competitor from the pet tracking market, reducing consumer options & innovation pressure in the $100-150 price segment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webpronews.com/tractive-acquires-whistle-pet-trackers-obsolete-by-august-2025/|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle: Pet Trackers Obsolete by August 2025|publisher=WebProNews|date=2025-07-29|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
Consumer reactions have been documented across multiple platforms:

*Trustpilot reviews for Whistle average 2.4 out of 5 stars across 2,579 reviews, with recent complaints focusing on the shutdown announcement. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/whistle.com|title=Whistle Reviews|publisher=Trustpilot|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Reviews of the company & the product were consistently poor prior to the shutdown announcement.
*Better Business Bureau records show patterns of complaints regarding subscription issues and warranty concerns<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-francisco/profile/find-a-pet/whistle-labs-1116-534049/complaints|title=Whistle Labs BBB Complaints|publisher=Better Business Bureau|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*Reddit users have expressed frustration about losing years of pet health data when it comes to animals with medical conditions that require long-term monitoring<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/07/acquisition-sends-thousands-of-whistle-pet-trackers-to-iot-graveyard/|title=Acquisition sends thousands of Whistle pet trackers to IoT graveyard|publisher=Ars Technica|date=2025-07-29|author=Scharon Harding|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

One user stated that the loss of behavioral monitoring features was "very handy, so to lose that sucks" when describing how they used the device to track their dog's seasonal allergies.<ref name=":2">{{cite web |author= |date=2025-07-29 |title=Whistle question : r/tractivegps |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/tractivegps/comments/1mbflhn/comment/n5lwr0u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1 |access-date=2025-08-12 |publisher=reddit}}</ref>
[[File:Reddit user discussing whistle device bricking.png|thumb|Whistle user discussing device bricking on Reddit. <ref name=":2" />]]

Technology publication Engadget noted that "''thousands of GPS trackers and monitors will morph into e-waste in about a month."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/wearables/whistle-pet-trackers-are-shutting-down-next-month-212828325.html|title=Whistle pet trackers are shutting down next month|publisher=Engadget|date=2025-07-30|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Institutional response==
The Whistle shutdown contributes to what the US PIRG Education Fund describes as an ''"Electronic Waste Graveyard"'' of over 100 tech products, which have stopped working after manufacturers dropped support.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/electronic-waste-graveyard/|title=Electronic Waste Graveyard|publisher=US PIRG Education Fund|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The organization estimates that expired software and canceled cloud services have created ''"a minimum of 130 million pounds of electronic waste"'' since 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/07/acquisition-sends-thousands-of-whistle-pet-trackers-to-iot-graveyard/|title=Acquisition sends thousands of Whistle pet trackers to IoT graveyard|publisher=Ars Technica|date=2025-07-29|author=Scharon Harding|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==See also==
*Google's Nest bricking Revolv smart home hubs in 2016<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/420413/why-nests-revolv-hubs-wont-be-the-last-iot-devices-knocked-offline.html|title=Why Nest's Revolv hubs won't be the last IoT devices knocked offline|publisher=PCWorld|date=2016-04-06|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*[[Wink]]'s 2020 demand for mandatory subscriptions with one week notice<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.consumerreports.org/smart-home/wink-tells-users-pay-up-or-we-will-disable-smart-home-hub/|title=Wink Tells Users: Pay $5 a Month or We'll Disable Your Smart Home Hub|publisher=Consumer Reports|date=2020-05-06|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*[[Best Buy discontinuation of Insignia Connect|Best Buy's shutdown of Insignia smart home products]] in 2019<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tomsguide.com/news/best-buy-is-dumbing-down-its-smart-home-devices|title=Best Buy Is Dumbing Down Its Smart Home Devices|publisher=Tom's Guide|date=2019-11-05|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

Whistle pet tracker shutdown IoT fail

2025-11-06T00:08:54Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Consumer response */ fixed cite error

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tractive, Mars Petcare, Whistle Labs
|StartDate=2025-07-28
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Pet tracking devices
|ArticleType=Incident
|Type=Planned Obsolescence, Service Termination
|Description=Whistle pet trackers will cease functioning on August 31, 2025, following Tractive's acquisition of the company from Mars Petcare
}}Whistle pet trackers will cease functioning on August 31, 2025, following Tractive's acquisition of the company from Mars Petcare.

==Background==
Whistle Labs was founded in 2012 as a developer of GPS enabled pet tracking & health monitoring devices.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_(company)|title=Whistle (company)|publisher=Wikipedia|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The company marketed its products as ''"Fitbit for dogs,"'' offering activity tracking, GPS location services, & health monitoring ability.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/31/whistle-acquired-by-mars/|title=Whistle's 'Fitbit for dogs' acquired by Mars Petcare|publisher=TechCrunch|date=2016-03-31|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Mars Petcare, a subsidiary of Mars Inc., acquired Whistle in April 2016 for approximately $117 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/mars-said-to-spend-117m-to-acquire-whistle-s-fitbit-for-dogs|title=Pet Food Maker Mars Spends $117 Million to Acquire Whistle's 'Fitbit for Dogs'|publisher=Bloomberg|date=2016-04-01|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Under Mars ownership, Whistle expanded its product line to include models such as the GO, GO Explore, Switch, FIT, & Health trackers, with retail prices ranging from $100 to $199.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://aorkuler.com/blogs/blog/whistle-pet-tracker-2024-product-description|title=Whistle Pet Tracker 2024: Products Description|publisher=Aorkuler|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive, an Austrian company founded in 2012, operates as a competitor in the pet GPS tracking market, offering similar location and health monitoring services across 175 countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/blog/en/press/tractive-acquires-whistle|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Tractive|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Acquisition and shutdown announcement==
On July 28, 2025, Tractive announced its acquisition of Whistle from Mars Petcare.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/blog/en/press/tractive-acquires-whistle|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Tractive|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Financial terms were not disclosed, though a webpage article that seems AI generated values the deal in the ''"tens of millions."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webpronews.com/tractive-acquires-whistle-pet-trackers-obsolete-by-august-2025/|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle: Pet Trackers Obsolete by August 2025|publisher=WebProNews|date=2025-07-29|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Take this with a shaker of salt.

Alongside the acquisition announcement, Tractive said that all Whistle devices would permanently stop working on August 31, 2025, giving users 33 days notice.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whistle.com/blogs/news/whistle-joins-the-tractive-family|title=Whistle joins the Tractive Family|publisher=Whistle|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The shutdown affects all Whistle product models and will result in:

*Complete loss of GPS tracking functionality
*Inability to access the Whistle mobile application
*Permanent loss of all historical pet health and activity data
*Obsolescence of all Whistle hardware accessories and chargers

Users have been informed that pet health data collected over years "will not be transferred to the replacement Tractive devices" due to what the company describes as "different algorithms that would not be compatible with Tractive's systems."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whistle.com/blogs/news/whistle-joins-the-tractive-family|title=Whistle joins the Tractive Family|publisher=Whistle|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

===Tractive's response===
Tractive has offered a replacement program providing free GPS tracker devices to affected Whistle customers. The program includes:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whistle.com/blogs/news/whistle-joins-the-tractive-family|title=Whistle joins the Tractive Family|publisher=Whistle|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

*One free Tractive GPS tracker (valued at $49.99-$99.00) per Whistle device
*Transfer of remaining subscription time to Tractive service
*Two months free service for non-subscribers who purchase a new plan
*Deadline of September 30, 2025, to claim replacements

The company justified the shutdown by stating that ''"maintaining and developing two separate ecosystems—devices, apps, and software—doubles the complexity and could limit the quality of service and innovation."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/blog/en/press/tractive-acquires-whistle|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Tractive|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive CEO Michael Hurnaus characterized the acquisition as enabling the company to ''"deliver new features and improvements faster, more reliably, and with greater impact for all users—including former Whistle customers."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tractive-acquires-whistle-mars-petcare-110000346.html|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle from Mars Petcare to Accelerate Leadership in Global Pet Tech Market|publisher=Yahoo Finance|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Consumer impact==
Both Whistle & Tractive devices require active subscriptions to function. The subscription fees cover cellular data costs necessary for GPS tracking.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amazon.com/Whistle-100-00500-00-GPS-Pet-Tracker/dp/B015DV0O9C|title=Whistle GPS Pet Tracker|publisher=Amazon|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/en/c/plans|title=Tractive GPS Tracker Plans|publisher=Tractive|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Without an active subscription, neither device can perform location tracking or health monitoring functions.

===Subscription cost comparison===
Prior to the shutdown, Whistle subscription plans cost:
*Monthly: $9.95 per month
*Yearly: $8.25 per month when paid annually (approximately $99 per year)
*Some older plans: As low as $6.95 per month<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chewy.com/whistle-3-dog-cat-gps-tracker/dp/138368|title=Whistle 3 Dog & Cat GPS Tracker|publisher=Chewy|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

Tractive subscription plans cost:
*Monthly: $10-12 per month (availability varies by country)
*Yearly: $5-9 per month when paid annually ($60-108 per year)
*Multi-year plans: As low as $5 per month<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tractive.com/en/c/plans|title=Tractive Subscription Plans|publisher=Tractive|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Subscription costs are comparable.'''

===Non-financial consumer impacts===
Despite Tractive providing free replacement devices & similar subscription pricing, there are several areas of harm caused by the bricking of older devices:

'''Data loss''': All historical pet health data collected over years '''cannot be transferred to Tractive's platform''', affecting users who rely on this information for veterinary care decisions, particularly for pets with chronic conditions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whistle.com/blogs/news/whistle-joins-the-tractive-family|title=Whistle joins the Tractive Family|publisher=Whistle|date=2025-07-28|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Feature reduction''': Whistle's specialized behavioral monitoring capabilities for tracking licking, scratching, and sleep quality are not available on Tractive devices, potentially affecting early detection of health issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.walmart.com/ip/Whistle-Go-Explore-Dog-GPS-Tracking-Device-and-Pet-Health-Monitoring-System-Grey-Fits-Most-Collars/2542522231|title=Whistle Go Explore Dog GPS Tracking Device|publisher=Walmart|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Significantly reduced battery life''': Users report Whistle devices lasting 10-15 days per charge compared to Tractive's 2-7 days/.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rover.com/blog/whistle-go-explore-review/|title=Whistle Go Explore Review|publisher=Rover|date=2024-09-03|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/tractive-dog-gps-tracker-review|title=Tractive Dog GPS Tracker 2025 Review|publisher=Dogster|date=2025-01-07|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Accessory obsolescence''': All Whistle-specific hardware including chargers, collar attachments, & accessories become unusable, requiring additional replacement purchases beyond the tracker itself.

'''Inadequate transition period''': The 33-day notice period has been criticized as insufficient for users to research alternatives, claim replacements, & adapt to new systems, particularly affecting elderly users and households with multiple pets.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/wearables/whistle-pet-trackers-are-shutting-down-next-month-212828325.html|title=Whistle pet trackers are shutting down next month|publisher=Engadget|date=2025-07-30|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

'''Choice elimination''': The acquisition removes a major competitor from the pet tracking market, reducing consumer options & innovation pressure in the $100-150 price segment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webpronews.com/tractive-acquires-whistle-pet-trackers-obsolete-by-august-2025/|title=Tractive Acquires Whistle: Pet Trackers Obsolete by August 2025|publisher=WebProNews|date=2025-07-29|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
Consumer reactions have been documented across multiple platforms:

*Trustpilot reviews for Whistle average 2.4 out of 5 stars across 2,579 reviews, with recent complaints focusing on the shutdown announcement. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.trustpilot.com/review/whistle.com|title=Whistle Reviews|publisher=Trustpilot|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> Reviews of the company & the product were consistently poor prior to the shutdown announcement.
*Better Business Bureau records show patterns of complaints regarding subscription issues and warranty concerns<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-francisco/profile/find-a-pet/whistle-labs-1116-534049/complaints|title=Whistle Labs BBB Complaints|publisher=Better Business Bureau|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*Reddit users have expressed frustration about losing years of pet health data when it comes to animals with medical conditions that require long-term monitoring<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/07/acquisition-sends-thousands-of-whistle-pet-trackers-to-iot-graveyard/|title=Acquisition sends thousands of Whistle pet trackers to IoT graveyard|publisher=Ars Technica|date=2025-07-29|author=Scharon Harding|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

One user stated that the loss of behavioral monitoring features was "very handy, so to lose that sucks" when describing how they used the device to track their dog's seasonal allergies.<ref>{{cite web |author= |date=2025-07-29 |title=Whistle question : r/tractivegps |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/tractivegps/comments/1mbflhn/comment/n5lwr0u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1 |access-date=2025-08-12 |publisher=reddit}}</ref>
[[File:Reddit user discussing whistle device bricking.png|thumb|Whistle user discussing device bricking on Reddit <ref>{{Cite web |title=Whistle question : r/tractivegps |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/tractivegps/comments/1mbflhn/comment/n5lwr0u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button |website=Reddit}}</ref>]]

Technology publication Engadget noted that "''thousands of GPS trackers and monitors will morph into e-waste in about a month."''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/wearables/whistle-pet-trackers-are-shutting-down-next-month-212828325.html|title=Whistle pet trackers are shutting down next month|publisher=Engadget|date=2025-07-30|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==Institutional response==
The Whistle shutdown contributes to what the US PIRG Education Fund describes as an ''"Electronic Waste Graveyard"'' of over 100 tech products, which have stopped working after manufacturers dropped support.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/electronic-waste-graveyard/|title=Electronic Waste Graveyard|publisher=US PIRG Education Fund|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref> The organization estimates that expired software and canceled cloud services have created ''"a minimum of 130 million pounds of electronic waste"'' since 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/07/acquisition-sends-thousands-of-whistle-pet-trackers-to-iot-graveyard/|title=Acquisition sends thousands of Whistle pet trackers to IoT graveyard|publisher=Ars Technica|date=2025-07-29|author=Scharon Harding|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==See also==
*Google's Nest bricking Revolv smart home hubs in 2016<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/420413/why-nests-revolv-hubs-wont-be-the-last-iot-devices-knocked-offline.html|title=Why Nest's Revolv hubs won't be the last IoT devices knocked offline|publisher=PCWorld|date=2016-04-06|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*[[Wink]]'s 2020 demand for mandatory subscriptions with one week notice<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.consumerreports.org/smart-home/wink-tells-users-pay-up-or-we-will-disable-smart-home-hub/|title=Wink Tells Users: Pay $5 a Month or We'll Disable Your Smart Home Hub|publisher=Consumer Reports|date=2020-05-06|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>
*[[Best Buy discontinuation of Insignia Connect|Best Buy's shutdown of Insignia smart home products]] in 2019<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tomsguide.com/news/best-buy-is-dumbing-down-its-smart-home-devices|title=Best Buy Is Dumbing Down Its Smart Home Devices|publisher=Tom's Guide|date=2019-11-05|access-date=2025-08-12}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

Ring

2025-11-06T00:05:13Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* 2023 FTC settlement */ fixed cite error

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=The majority of the article is quoting Wikipedia. It needs to be more original.|Issue 2=Needs to include this [https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/privacy-loophole-ring-doorbell-00084979 Politico article] and this [https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/13/amazon-gave-ring-videos-to-police-without-owners-permission-00045513 Politico article]}}
{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Ring
| Type = Subsidiary
| Founded = 2013
| Industry = Home security
| Official Website = https://ring.com/
| Logo = Ring.svg
}}

'''[[wikipedia:Ring_(company)|Ring]]''' is a manufacturer of home security and smart home devices owned by [[Amazon]], the company was acquired as a subsidiary in 2018.<ref>https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/12/amazon-officially-owns-ring-so-lets-talk-product-integration/</ref>

==Lawsuits==

===2023 FTC settlement===
In a complaint first announced in May 2023, the FTC says that Ring deceived its customers by failing to restrict employees’ and contractors’ access to its customers’ videos, using its customer videos to train algorithms without consent, and failing to implement security safeguards. These practices led to egregious violations of users’ privacy.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04-23 |title=FTC Sends Refunds to Ring Customers Stemming from 2023 Settlement over Charges the Company Failed to Block Employees and Hackers from Accessing Consumer Videos |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-sends-refunds-ring-customers-stemming-2023-settlement-over-charges-company-failed-block |website=FTC}}</ref> The stated failure in security safeguard implementation is the result of a 2019 data breach where the log-in credentials for 3,672 Ring camera owners were compromised, exposing log-in emails, passwords, time zones, and the names people give to specific Ring cameras. Using the log-in email and password, an intruder could access a Ring customer’s home address, telephone number, and payment information, including the kind of card they have, and its last four digits and security code. An intruder could also access live camera footage from all active Ring cameras associated with an account, as well as a 30- to 60-day video history, depending on the user’s cloud storage plan.<ref>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/data-leak-exposes-personal-data-over-3000-ring-camera-users</ref>

Ring settled the complaint for a sum of around $5.6 million to the 117,044 individuals who filed with the complaint, meaning the individual reimbursement was only around $60 per claim; despite some users having lost privacy to highly sensitive videos as many users installed the cameras in sensitive spaces such as bedrooms for both adults and children.

==Vulnerabilities==
''The following section was sourced from [[Wikipedia:Ring_(company)#Vulnerabilities|Wikipedia]]:''

In January 2019, it was uncovered that employees at Ring's two offices had access to the video recordings from all Ring devices.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Wiggers|first=Kyle|date=January 10, 2019|title=Ring employees reportedly had access to all live and recorded customer videos|work=VentureBeat|url=https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/10/ring-employees-reportedly-had-access-to-all-live-and-recorded-customer-videos/|access-date=January 12, 2019}}</ref> In addition, ''The Intercept'' reported that the video data was stored unencrypted.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Biddle|first=Sam|date=January 10, 2018|title=For Owners of Amazon's Ring Security Cameras, Strangers May Have Been Watching Too|work=The Intercept|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-camera/|access-date=January 12, 2018}}</ref> In a December 2019 test, ''Motherboard'' found that Ring's software did not implement security features such as recognizing unknown IP addresses or providing a display of active login sessions, allowing the publication to access a Ring account from IP addresses based in multiple countries without warning the user.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Joseph|last1=Cox|access-date=February 20, 2020|title=We Tested Ring's Security. It's Awful|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/epg4xm/amazon-ring-camera-security|date=December 17, 2019|website=Vice}}</ref>

The Neighbors network leaks metadata about the footage posted in videos and "crime alerts". This metadata, combined with public city map data, is frequently sufficient to discover the exact location of the Ring doorbell or a camera. In one experiment, ''Gizmodo'' located 20,000 devices based on information collected (scraped from the app) over a period of month. University researchers were able to locate 440,000 devices using data spanning back to 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ring's Hidden Data Let Us Map Amazon's Sprawling Home Surveillance Network|url=https://gizmodo.com/ring-s-hidden-data-let-us-map-amazons-sprawling-home-su-1840312279|access-date=November 27, 2020|website=Gizmodo|date=December 9, 2019|language=en-us}}</ref>

Cybersecurity firm Bitdefender identified a vulnerability in the Ring Video Doorbell Pro product in July 2019, which was patched before being publicly disclosed in November 2019.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Palmer|first1=Danny|date=November 7, 2019|title=Amazon fixes Ring Video Doorbell wi-fi security vulnerability|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-fixes-ring-video-doorbell-wi-fi-security-vulnerability/|access-date=December 13, 2019|website=ZDNet}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Ng|first1=Alfred|date=November 7, 2019|title=Ring doorbells had vulnerability leaking Wi-Fi login info, researchers find|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/ring-doorbells-had-vulnerability-leaking-wi-fi-login-info-researchers-found/|access-date=December 13, 2019|website=CNET}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=November 7, 2019|title=Ring Video Doorbell Pro Under the Scope|url=https://www.bitdefender.com/files/News/CaseStudies/study/294/Bitdefender-WhitePaper-RDoor-CREA3949-en-EN-GenericUse.pdf|access-date=December 13, 2019|website=Bitdefender}}</ref> Hackers accessed a number of Ring cameras in December 2019 and used the device speakers to broadcast racial slurs, threats, and other inflammatory language to multiple households across the United States.<ref name="Vice podcast">{{cite web|last1=Cox|first1=Joseph|last2=Koebler|first2=Jason|date=December 12, 2019|title=Inside the Podcast that Hacks Ring Camera Owners Live on Air|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bbq4/podcast-livestreams-hacked-ring-cameras-nulledcast|access-date=December 12, 2019|website=Vice}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Murdock|first1=Jason|date=December 10, 2019|title=Ring camera hacker uses home security system to spew racial slurs at Florida family|url=https://www.newsweek.com/florida-cape-coral-amazon-ring-home-security-system-hacked-racial-slurs-1476430|access-date=December 12, 2019|website=Newsweek}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Howerton|first=Matt|date=December 11, 2019|title=Hacker says, 'pay bitcoin ransom or get terminated,' through couple's Ring security cameras|url=https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/hacker-says-pay-bitcoin-ransom-or-get-terminated-through-couples-ring-security-cameras/287-226c535c-c765-4b29-91b6-d849fb315e94|access-date=December 12, 2019|website=WFAA}}</ref> A ''Motherboard'' investigation discovered crime forums that distributed software exploits of Ring devices that were used in the cyberattacks, and that members of the hacking forum Nulled had been recording their breaches as "podcasts".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cox|first1=Joseph|last2=Cole|first2=Samantha|date=December 11, 2019|title=How Hackers Are Breaking Into Ring Cameras|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a88k5/how-hackers-are-breaking-into-ring-cameras|access-date=December 12, 2019|website=Vice}}</ref> Ring responded to the incidents by advising its users to have strong passwords, enable two-factor authentication, and adopt other security measures.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Holley|first1=Jessica|title=Family says hackers accessed a Ring camera in their 8-year-old daughter's room|url=https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/2019/12/11/family-says-hackers-accessed-ring-camera-their-year-old-daughters-room/|access-date=December 12, 2019|website=WMC Action News 5|date=December 12, 2019}}</ref> Ring mandated two-factor authentication for all users on February 18, 2020.<ref>{{cite web|date=February 19, 2020|title=Ring makes two-step verification mandatory|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51555450|access-date=February 20, 2020|website=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Song|first=Victoria|date=February 18, 2020|title=Ring Finally Rolls Out Mandatory Two-Factor Authentication After Privacy Scandals|url=https://gizmodo.com/ring-finally-rolls-out-mandatory-two-factor-authenticat-1841760958|access-date=February 20, 2020|website=Gizmodo}}</ref>

==Controversies==

===Subscription required for local storage===
Ring security cameras are the more premium product line of security cameras.<ref>https://www.theverge.com/22704290/amazon-blink-ring-camera-doorbell-brands-smart-home-why</ref> There are different subscriptions possible, there is basic, standard and premium.<ref name=":0">https://ring.com/plans; [https://web.archive.org/web/20250124214629/https://ring.com/plans Archive link of 2025-01-24]</ref> Ring cameras are cloud-first, and with these subscriptions comes different variants of cloud storage for the video footage that your cameras record. There is also an additional product that you can buy, and for local recordings there is even a must buy for the more premium products.<ref>https://ring.com/support/articles/t6xbc/Store-and-Process-Videos-Locally-with-Ring-Edge-and-Ring-Alarm-Pro</ref> To record locally to a MicroSD card, you need the Ring Alarm Pro base station ($249.99)<ref>https://ring.com/products/alarm-pro-base-station; [https://web.archive.org/web/20250108152541/https://ring.com/products/alarm-pro-base-station Archive link of 2025-01-08]</ref> and what is called "Ring Edge for Alarm Pro" in your subscription. The only subscription that offers this feature is the most expensive subscription, which is the premium subscription, costing $19.99/mo or $199.99/yr.<ref name=":0" />

===Police partnerships===
''The following section was sourced from [[Wikipedia:Ring_(company)#Police_partnerships|Wikipedia]]:''

In June 2019, Ring faced criticism over a "Community Alert" program, under which the company has made geographically-targeted sponsored posts on social media services such as Facebook, asking readers to provide tips on suspects in verified cases, based on imagery posted on the Neighbors service by a Ring customer. Ring stated that it sought permission from the user before using their content in this manner. However, these discoveries did lead to concerns over the use of such footage in material deemed to effectively be advertising, as well as concerns over other possible uses of the footage (such as for training facial recognition) due to the wide copyright license that users must grant to in order to use Neighbors (an irrevocable, unlimited, and royalty-free license to use shared content "for any purpose and in any media formats in any media channels without compensation to you"), and Ring's partnerships with local law enforcement agencies.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Reichert|first=Corinne|title=Ring puts suspected thief in Facebook sponsored ads|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/ring-puts-suspected-thief-in-facebook-sponsored-ads/|access-date=June 18, 2019|website=CNET|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Alba|first1=Davey|last2=Mac|first2=Ryan|date=June 7, 2019|title=Amazon's Doorbell Camera Company Is Using Security Video For Ads. That May Only Be The Beginning.|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/amazon-ring-doorbell-company-using-security-footage-for-ads|access-date=June 12, 2019|website=BuzzFeed News|language=en}}</ref>

Digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future criticized Ring for using its cameras and Neighbors app to build a private surveillance network via partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, which encourage them to promote the products. The group stated that these partnerships "undermine our democratic process and basic civil liberties".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49191005|title=Amazon's Ring doorbell police tie-up criticised|work=BBC News|date=August 1, 2019|access-date=August 3, 2019|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/this-map-tells-you-where-police-have-partnered-with-amazons-ring/|title=This map tells you where police have partnered with Amazon's Ring|last=Ng|first=Alfred|website=CNET|language=en|access-date=August 3, 2019}}</ref> According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Ring used these partnerships and its marketing strategies to foster fear, which leads to a "vicious cycle" that spurs hardware sales. The organization said that Ring, as well as Neighbors and similar "neighborhood watch" apps such as Citizen and Nextdoor, "facilitate reporting of so-called 'suspicious' behavior that really amounts to racial profiling."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats|title=Amazon's Ring Is a Perfect Storm of Privacy Threats|last=Guariglia|first=Matthew|date=August 8, 2019|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=August 13, 2019}}</ref> Matt Cagle of the American Civil Liberties Union said that the Ring Neighbors Portal "blurs the line between corporate and government surveillance" and that "Many people are not going to feel like they have a choice when law enforcement asks for access to their footage".<ref name="Intercept">{{cite web|last=Biddle|first=Sam|date=February 14, 2019|title=Amazon's Home Surveillance Chief Declared War on "Dirtbag Criminals" as Company Got Closer to Police|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/02/14/amazon-ring-police-surveillance/|access-date=January 17, 2020|website=The Intercept}}</ref>

In July 2019, Vice publication ''Motherboard'' obtained records revealing the extent of Ring's partnership with the Lakeland (Florida) Police Department (LPD). The department was granted access to a "Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal" for making posts on Neighbors and the ability to "request videos directly from Ring users," and received a donation of 15 Ring cameras. However, the memorandum of understanding stated that the LPD would be required to participate in "outreach efforts on the platform to encourage adoption of the platform/app" (receiving $10 credits for Ring camera purchases for each new user). Ring also recommended that the LPD establish specific new positions for the partnership, including a "social media coordinator".<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Haskins|first1=Caroline|last2=Koebler|first2=Jason|date=July 25, 2019|title=Amazon Requires Police to Shill Surveillance Cameras in Secret Agreement|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb88za/amazon-requires-police-to-shill-surveillance-cameras-in-secret-agreement|access-date=August 2, 2019|website=Vice|language=en-US}}</ref> Later in the month, ''Motherboard'' obtained public records containing an officer's notes from an April 2019 training webinar, which stated that Ring had partnered with at least 200 law enforcement partners.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Haskins|first1=Caroline|last2=Maiberg|first2=Emanuel|last3=Mead|first3=Derek|last4=Koebler|first4=Jason|date=July 29, 2019|title=Amazon Told Police It Has Partnered With 200 Law Enforcement Agencies|url=https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5wyjy/amazon-told-police-it-has-partnered-with-200-law-enforcement-agencies|access-date=August 2, 2019|website=Vice|language=en-US}}</ref> In early August 2019, ''Motherboard'' also reported that Ring would match payments by cities to cover the subsidized purchase of Ring cameras, so that they could be resold to residents at a discount.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Haskins|first1=Caroline|last2=Koebler|first2=Jason|last3=Mead|first3=Derek|date=August 2, 2019|title=US Cities Are Helping People Buy Amazon Surveillance Cameras With Taxpayer Money|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3ag37/us-cities-are-helping-people-buy-amazon-surveillance-cameras-using-taxpayer-money|access-date=August 2, 2019|website=Vice|language=en-US}}</ref>

In November 2020, a pilot program in Jackson, Mississippi, enabled participating Ring users to enable police to livestream their cameras at any time.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Holmes|first=Aaron|title=Police are tapping into residents' Ring doorbells and home security cameras to stream 24/7 live video|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/ring-doorbells-live-video-security-camera-police-fusus-2020-11|access-date=November 11, 2020|website=Business Insider}}</ref>

===Alleged use of facial recognition technology===
''The following section was sourced from [[Wikipedia:Ring_(company)#Alleged_use_of_facial_recognition_technology|Wikipedia]]:''

In February 2018, Business Insider reported references to use of facial recognition technology in Ring's privacy policy. The policy stated:<blockquote>Where permitted by applicable law, you may choose to use additional functionality in your Ring product that, through video data from your device, '''can recognize facial characteristics of familiar visitors'''. For example, you may want to receive different notifications from your Ring Doorbell depending on whether a visitor is a stranger or a member of your household. '''If you choose to activate this feature, we obtain certain facial feature information about the visitors you ask your Ring product to recognize'''. We require your explicit consent before you can take advantage of this feature.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ghosh|first=Shona|title=Amazon's newest acquisition, the doorbell startup Ring, made a smart move to fend off Google|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-smart-doorbell-ring-facial-recognition-2018-2|access-date=2023-07-20|website=Business Insider|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-07-25|title=Privacy {{!}} Ring|url=https://shop.ring.com/pages/privacy|access-date=2023-07-20|archive-date=July 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725110729/https://shop.ring.com/pages/privacy}}</ref></blockquote>In December 2018, patents filed by Ring surfaced to identify "suspicious" people and automatically alert police.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Amazon's Ring takes heat for considering facial recognition for its video doorbells|url=https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/amazons-ring-takes-heat-for-considering-facial-recognition-for-its-video-doorbells/|access-date=2023-07-20|website=CNET|language=en}}</ref>

In August 2019, a Buzzfeed News reported, "Ring Says It Doesn't Use Facial Recognition, But It Has "A Head Of Face Recognition Research."" The piece reported on a 2018 presentation from Ring Ukraine's "Head of Face Recognition Research", as well as a statement from Ring Ukraine's website stating, "We develop semi-automated crime prevention and monitoring systems which are based on, but not limited to, face recognition."<ref>{{Cite web|first1=Nicole|last1=Nguyen|first2=Ryan|last2=Mac|date=2019-08-30|title=Ring Says It Doesn't Use Facial Recognition, But It Has "A Head Of Face Recognition Research"|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/amazon-ring-facial-recognition-ukraine|access-date=2023-07-20|website=BuzzFeed News|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-05-23|title=Ring Ukraine|url=https://ring-ukraine.com/|access-date=2023-07-20|archive-date=May 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190523100219/https://ring-ukraine.com/}}</ref>

Also in 2019, as part of his investigation into Ring's cooperation with law enforcement, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts probed the company's privacy policy's reference to use of facial recognition technology.<ref>{{Cite web|title=September 2019 Inquiry Letter from Sen. Markey to Ring|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Markey%20letter%20-%20Ring%20Law%20Enforcement%209.5.19.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Senator Markey Investigation into Amazon Ring Doorbell Reveals Egregiously Lax Privacy Policies and Civil Rights Protections {{!}} U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-investigation-into-amazon-ring-doorbell-reveals-egregiously-lax-privacy-policies-and-civil-rights-protections|access-date=2023-07-20|website=www.markey.senate.gov|language=en}}</ref> Amazon responded:<blockquote>We do not currently offer facial recognition technology in Ring products. This sentence in the Privacy Notice refers to a contemplated, but unreleased feature. We do frequently innovate based on customer demand, and facial recognition features are increasingly common in consumer security cameras today, such as: Google Nest Hello, Tend Secure Lynx, Netamo Welcome, Wisenet Smartcam, and Honeywell Smart Home Security. If our customers want these features in Ring security cameras, we will only release these feature with thoughtful design including privacy, security, and user control; and we will clearly communicate with our customers as we offer new features.<ref>{{Cite web|title=November 2019 Response from Amazon to Sen. Markey|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Response%20Letter_Ring_Senator%20Markey%2011.01.2019.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>In November 2019, the Intercept reported on internal documents detailing "Proactive Suspect Matching". The feature would use facial recognition to group videos and create a profile of an alleged criminal based on Ring camera footage.<ref name="Intercept" /> Ring denied that the feature was in use or development.

In 2020, Ring posted a one-sentence position stance on their blog stating, "Ring does not use facial recognition technology in any of its devices or services, and will neither sell nor offer facial recognition technology to law enforcement."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ring|date=2020-08-20|title=Ring's Stance on Facial Recognition Technology|url=https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/rings-stance-on-facial-recognition-technology/|access-date=2023-07-20|website=The Ring Blog|language=en}}</ref> In 2021, Senator Markey and his colleagues introduced the "Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Senators Markey, Merkley Lead Colleagues on Legislation to Ban Government Use of Facial Recognition, Other Biometric Technology {{!}} U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-merkley-lead-colleagues-on-legislation-to-ban-government-use-of-facial-recognition-other-biometric-technology|access-date=2023-07-20|website=www.markey.senate.gov|language=en}}</ref> A year later, Markey renewed his investigation into Ring,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Senator Markey Renews Investigation into Amazon Ring's Surveillance Practices and Cooperation with Police {{!}} U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-renews-investigation-into-amazon-rings-surveillance-practices-and-cooperation-with-police|access-date=2023-07-20|website=www.markey.senate.gov|language=en}}</ref> and in July 2022, Markey cited Ring's "[refusal] to commit to not incorporating facial recognition technology in its products" as evidence of the need for legislation to "prohibit use of biometric technology by federal agencies and condition federal grant funding to state and local entities on moratoria on the use of biometric technology."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Senator Markey's Probe into Amazon Ring Reveals New Privacy Problems {{!}} U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts|url=https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markeys-probe-into-amazon-ring-reveals-new-privacy-problems|access-date=2023-07-20|website=www.markey.senate.gov|language=en}}</ref>

Amazon has attempted to distance themselves from Ring Ukraine, the branch responsible for developing computer vision and facial recognition solutions. In a statement for release, the general manager of the Kyiv-based office commented, "We are no longer part of a small startup, but a full-fledged R&D center working for one of the world's largest corporations. [We are involved not only in Ring's product line but also in many other Amazon projects. That is,] We are a large Ukrainian team of specialists working on the world market." At legal's request, the general manager was asked to remove the reference to Amazon.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Biddle|first=Sam|date=2020-01-24|title=Ring Ukraine News Suppressed at Amazon's Request, Journalists Say|url=https://theintercept.com/2020/01/24/amazon-ring-ukraine/|access-date=2023-07-20|website=The Intercept|language=en-US}}</ref> "Ring Ukraine" was eventually rebranded as "Squad".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ring Ukraine office need you to forget they are part of Amazon|url=https://ain.capital/2021/01/29/ring-ukraine-changes-its-name-to-squad/|access-date=2023-07-20|website=AIN.Capital|language=en-US}}</ref>

===Alleged user tracking===
''The following section was sourced from [[Wikipedia:Ring_(company)#Allegations_of_user_tracking|Wikipedia]]:''

On January 27, 2020, the Electronic Frontier Foundation concluded that the Ring doorbell app for Android was sending identifiable personal information– including names, IP addresses, mobile network carriers, persistent IDs, and sensor data–to AppsFlyer, branch.io, Facebook, and Mixpanel.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/ring-doorbell-app-packed-third-party-trackers|title=Ring Doorbell App Packed with Third-Party Trackers|last=Budington|first=Bill|date=January 27, 2020|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=January 27, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/90464883/amazons-ring-will-let-users-opt-out-of-sharing-data-with-other-companies|title=Amazon's Ring will let users opt out of sharing data with other companies|last=Newman|first=Jared|date=February 14, 2020|website=Fast Company|access-date=March 23, 2020}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Amazon]]

Protection One 320P1 Security System

2025-11-06T00:01:41Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

{{Irrelevant}}
{{ProductCargo
|Company=Protection One
|ProductLine=320P1
|ReleaseYear=2005
|InProduction=No
|ArticleType=Product
|Logo=proteciton 1 logo.png
|Description=Home security system
}}'''Protection One 320P1 Securuity System''' is a now end-of-life home security system including door and window sensors, glass break sensors, and alarm siren. Protection One was acquired by ADT<ref>{{Cite web |last=Snider |first=Mike |title=Home security firm ADT acquired by Apollo Global |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/16/home-security-firm-adt-acquired-apollo-global/80441846/ |website=USA TODAY}}</ref> but has since discontinued operation leaving these systems useless.

==Consumer-impact summary==
This product was once able to dial police and fire through copper wire telephone cables. This home security system technically ''should'' be able to function without being connected to the phone system, however the firmware for the control panel will show COMS errors if it cannot reach a phone line. This effectively bricks the security system rendering it useless and consumers are not able to operate it in an "offline" mode.

From the [https://www.manualslib.com/manual/949289/Protection-One-320p1.html product manual], one must "CALL FOR SERVICE" if any of the errors arise from being disconnected. The company doesn't exist and the website no longer works.

===From the manual===
<code>COMM. FAILURE</code>

<code>(or FC)Indicates that a failure has occurred in</code>

<code>the telephone communication portion of</code>

<code>your system. CALL FOR SERVICE.</code>

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Monopoly

2025-11-05T23:57:39Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Standard Oil */ fixed cite error

{{ToneWarning}}

A [[wikipedia:Monopoly|monopoly]] represents a market structure where a single seller or entity dominates the entire market for a particular good or service. This economic arrangement is characterized by a lack of viable substitute goods and the absence of economic competition. This allows the monopolist to potentially charge prices significantly above marginal cost while maintaining substantial monopoly profit.

In legal contexts, the concept of monopoly extends beyond pure single-firm markets to include various situations where market power is concentrated among very few actors, including duopolies, and oligopolies.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=July 1, 2023 |title=monopoly |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly |archive-url=https://archive.ph/hOJXp |archive-date=June 8, 2024 |website=www.law.cornell.edu }}</ref>

==Characteristics of monopolies==
Monopolistic market structures exhibit several defining features that distinguish them from other market forms. These characteristics create the conditions that allow monopolists to exercise market power and operate with limited competitive constraints:

{| class="wikitable" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; text-align: center" cellpadding="4px"
|+Key characteristics of monopolies
|-
! scope="col" style="text-align: left" |Characteristic
!Description
! scope="col" style="text-align: right" |Implication
|-
! scope="col" style="text-align: left" |Single seller
|Sole provider of a product/service
| scope="col" style="text-align: right" |No competition
|-
! scope="col" style="text-align: left" |Price setting
|Ability to set prices above competitive levels
| scope="col" style="text-align: right" |Higher prices
|-
! scope="col" style="text-align: left" |Barriers to entry
|Obstacles like patents, high startup costs, or resource control
| scope="col" style="text-align: right" |Market dominance
|-
! scope="col" style="text-align: left" |No close substitutes
|Unique product offering
| scope="col" style="text-align: right" |Consumer dependency
|-
|}

===Single seller and numerous buyers===
A monopoly market consists of one single supplier facing many buyers. This eliminates the distinction between the firm and the industry, the monopolistic firm is the industry in which it operates. This single-seller status means that the monopolist's demand curve is identical to the market demand curve, which typically slopes downward, indicating that the monopolist must lower prices to increase sales volume.

===Absence of close substitutes===
The product or service offered by a monopolist has no close alternatives available to consumers. The cross-elasticity of demand between the monopolist's product and other products is very low, meaning consumers cannot easily switch to alternatives if prices increase . This lack of substitution possibilities strengthens the monopolist's market power.

===Barriers to entry===

*Economic: high startup costs and economies of scale.

*Legal: Patents, copyrights, or government licenses.

*Deliberate: Predatory pricing, control of essential resources.

These entry restrictions protect the monopolist from competitive pressures that would otherwise erode its market position.

:Monopolies arise and persist due to various factors that create barriers to entry circumstances that prevent or significantly impede potential competitors from entering a market and challenging the dominant firm's position. These barriers can be categorized into several types:

====Economic barriers====
These represent structural market conditions that limit competition. The most significant barrier is economies of scale, which occurs when a firm's average production costs decrease as output increases.

In industries with substantial fixed costs (such as utilities manufacturing), large established firms enjoy cost advantages that new entrants cannot match initially.

Other economic barriers include high capital requirements, technological superiority, and control over essential resources.

====Legal barriers====
Government created restrictions that limit market entry. These include intellectual property protections such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, granting exclusive rights to produce, use, or sell inventions and creations for specified periods.<ref name=":0" /> While these protections aim to incentivize innovation, they simultaneously create temporary monopolies.

Other legal barriers include licensing requirements, mandatory government permission to operate in certain industries, permits, and regulations that disproportionately burden new market entrants compared to established firms. Governments may grant exclusive franchises to companies to provide specific services within certain geographical areas, creating legal monopolies.

====Deliberate barriers====
These result from strategic actions by established firms designed to maintain their monopoly position. These practices include predatory pricing, exclusive contracting, and vertical integration. Established firms may also engage in strategic patenting or lobbying for regulations that disadvantage potential entrants.

Some monopolists may create vendor lock-in situations by designing products that are incompatible with competitors' offerings, making it costly for consumers to switch to alternatives.

====Network effects====
These occur when a product or service becomes more valuable as more people use it. This creates a self-reinforcing advantage for established firms that have already accumulated a large user base.

Payment networks like Visa possess monopoly power partly because merchants and consumers prefer payment systems that are widely accepted.

Network effects can create natural monopolies in technology and platform-based markets where interoperability and standardization provide user benefits.

===Types of monopolies===
Monopolies can be categorized based on their formation processes, underlying economic conditions, and relationship to governmental authority.

*'''Natural'''
:Natural monopolies often develop in industries requiring extensive infrastructure networks, such as utilities and transportation systems. The infrastructure to deliver electricity, gas, and water involves substantial initial investment costs that make duplication impractical. In such cases, having multiple competitors would result in inefficient duplication of resources and potentially higher prices for consumers rather than lower ones.[6]

*'''Legal'''
:Legal monopolies or government-granted monopolies, are created through official government sanction via patents, copyrights, trademarks, and public franchises.<ref name=":0" /> These exclusive rights are granted to encourage innovation and investment in risky ventures by ensuring that inventors and creators can reap financial rewards from their efforts. Pharmaceutical companies receive patent protection that gives them temporary monopoly power over newly developed drugs, theoretically incentivizing substantial research and development investments. The U.S. Postal Service's exclusive right to deliver first-class mail represents another example of a legal monopoly.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kobayashi |first=Bruce H. |date= |title=The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property |url= |journal=George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper |volume= |pages= |via=}}</ref>

*'''Technological'''
:A technological monopoly arises when a company controls a proprietary technology or production process that competitors cannot easily replicate. This type of monopoly is often protected by patent laws but can also stem from significant expertise advantages or trade secrets. Historical examples include Microsoft's dominance in personal computer operating systems during the 1990s, which was partly attributed to its control of the Windows platform. Contemporary technology firms like Google in search engines and Amazon in e-commerce have also been described as having technological monopolies due to their market-dominating positions.

*'''Government'''
:In a government monopoly, the state itself owns and operates the production and distribution of certain goods and services. This arrangement is common in sectors considered natural monopolies or essential public services, such as water provision, electricity distribution, and public transportation systems. Government monopolies may also extend to industries considered strategically important or sensitive, such as arms manufacturing or nuclear energy in some countries. The justification for government monopolies typically centers on ensuring universal access, maintaining quality standards, and preventing private exploitation of essential services.

===Economic implication===
The economic effects of monopolies present a complex mix of potential drawbacks and benefits that economists have debated for decades. Understanding these implications requires examining both static efficiency considerations and dynamic innovation factors:[2]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Emerson |first=Patrick |date= |title=Intermediate Microeconomics |url=https://open.oregonstate.education/intermediatemicroeconomics/chapter/module-15/ |website=oregonstate.education}}</ref>

*'''Higher prices and reduced output'''
*:Competitive firms must accept market prices, monopolists can restrict output and charge higher prices than would prevail in competitive markets. By producing where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (rather than where price equals marginal cost as in perfect competition), monopolists generate less output while maintaining higher price points, resulting in reduced consumer surplus. This behavior leads to allocative inefficiency, where resources are not distributed in a manner that maximizes social welfare.

*'''Reduced consumer choice'''
*:Monopoly markets typically offer fewer product varieties and choices compared to competitive markets. With no competitive pressure to innovate or differentiate, monopolists may have little incentive to provide diverse options that cater to varied consumer preferences. This limitation of choice represents a reduction in consumer welfare that extends beyond price considerations alone.

*'''Potential for quality degradation'''
*:The absence of competitive pressure may reduce monopolists' incentives to maintain and improve product quality. Without rivals threatening to capture market share by offering superior products, monopolists might allow quality to deteriorate as a cost-saving measure, particularly if consumers have no alternative sources for the product or service.

*'''Rent-seeking behavior'''
*:Monopolists may engage in rent-seeking activities. Investing resources to maintain their monopoly position rather than to improve products or efficiency. This behavior represents a social waste because these resources could have been productively employed elsewhere in the economy. Rent-seeking often takes the form of lobbying for protective regulations or pursuing litigation against potential competitors.

*'''Income distribution effects'''
*:Monopoly profits often represent a transfer of wealth from consumers to shareholders who tend to be wealthier on average, potentially exacerbating income inequality. This redistribution occurs through the monopoly premium embedded in prices that exceeds what would be charged in competitive markets.

====Potential benefits====
*'''Economies of scale and lower costs'''
*:In industries with high fixed costs, monopolists may achieve lower average production costs through scale economies that could theoretically be passed on to consumers. Natural monopolies in particular might offer lower prices than competitive markets could sustain because competition would require duplication of expensive infrastructure. This argument is frequently advanced regarding utilities and network industries where infrastructure costs represent a substantial portion of total costs.

*'''Innovation and research development'''
*:The prospect of achieving monopoly profits can provide powerful incentives for innovation and research development. The patent system explicitly recognizes this dynamic by granting temporary monopolies to inventors. Some economists argue that without the possibility of monopoly rewards, firms would underinvest in research and development due to difficulties appropriating the full benefits of their innovations. This perspective suggests that certain monopoly profits represent a legitimate return on innovation risk.

*'''Standardization and stability'''
*:Monopolies can sometimes provide market stability and standardization benefits that competitive markets might not achieve as efficiently. For instance, a single dominant technology platform might create compatibility benefits that fragmented markets cannot match. Microsoft argued during its antitrust case that its integrated approach provided consumer benefits through standardization.

*'''Cross-subsidization possibilities'''
*:Monopolists with multiple product lines or customer segments may engage in cross-subsidization'', using profits from one area to support services that might not be economically viable in competitive markets. This practice can sometimes serve social objectives, such as maintaining service to unprofitable rural customers while providing urban services.''

==Notable monopolies==
Historical and modern examples of monopolies provide valuable insights into the formation, behavior, and regulation of dominant firms across different industries and time periods.

===Standard Oil===
Founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1870, one of the most famous historical monopolies. Standard Oil achieved control over approximately 90% of oil refining in the United States by the early 1880s. It's dominance led to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, and ultimately to its breakup into 34 separate companies in 1911 following a Supreme Court ruling. The Standard Oil case established important precedents for antitrust enforcement and demonstrated how monopolies could emerge through both efficiency advantages and anti-competitive practices.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Founding of U.S. Steel and the Power of Public Opinion |url=https://www.library.hbs.edu/us-steel/exhibition/the-founding-of-u.s.-steel-and-the-power-of-public-opinion |archive-date=September 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/QcmPI |website=www.library.hbs.edu }}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=Broken Trust |url=https://archivesfoundation.org/newsletter/broken-trust/ |website=National Archives Foundation}}</ref>

===AT&T===
AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph Company) maintained a monopoly on telephone service in the United States for much of the 20th century. Originally based on Bell's patent for the telephone, AT&T's monopoly persisted through control of critical infrastructure and regulatory capture. The company was considered a natural monopoly due to the extensive infrastructure requirements of telephone networks. By the 1970s, AT&T faced antitrust litigation that culminated in its 1984 breakup into seven regional "Baby Bell" companies. The AT&T case illustrates how technological change can eventually undermine natural monopoly arguments, as emerging technologies made telecommunications competition feasible.

===Microsoft corporation===

[[Microsoft]] faced significant antitrust scrutiny in the late 1990s over its dominance of personal computer operating systems and web browsers. The U.S. Department of Justice alleged that Microsoft maintained monopoly power in PC operating systems and used this power to unlawfully tie its Internet Explorer web browser to Windows, disadvantaging competitors like Netscape Navigator.

A 2000 court decision ordered Microsoft to be split into two separate companies, one for operating systems and one for software applications, though this penalty was ultimately overturned on appeal. They instead reached a settlement with the DOJ that imposed behavioral restrictions but preserved the company's structural integrity. This case highlighted how technology companies could achieve monopoly power through network effects and platform control rather than traditional barriers to entry.

===Contemporary tech monopolies===
Major technology companies including Google, Amazon, Facebook (Meta), and Apple have faced accusations of monopolistic behavior. Google has been subject to multiple antitrust lawsuits alleging it illegally maintained monopolies in search engines and digital advertising through exclusionary practices. Amazon faces scrutiny over its dual role as marketplace operator and competitor to third-party sellers on its platform. Facebook's acquisition strategy (including purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp) has drawn regulatory challenges aimed at preventing the entrenchment of monopoly power. These cases represent ongoing debates about how to apply traditional antitrust frameworks to digital platforms whose business models differ substantially from industrial-era monopolies.

==Government regulation of monopolies==
Governments employ various regulatory approaches to address monopoly power, balancing concerns about economic efficiency with other public policy objectives. These regulatory frameworks have evolved over time to address changing market conditions and economic understandings:

===Antitrust laws===
The United States has developed a comprehensive framework of antitrust legislation designed to prevent anti-competitive practices and protect consumer welfare. The cornerstone of U.S. antitrust law is the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade and bans monopolization attempts.

The Clayton Act of 1914 supplements the Sherman Act by addressing specific practices such as price discrimination, exclusive dealing arrangements, and mergers that substantially lessen competition.

These laws are enforced primarily by the DOJ and the FTC, which investigate potential violations and can pursue legal action against offending companies.

===Regulatory approaches===
*'''Price regulation'''
*:For natural monopolies (particularly utilities), regulators often implement price controls to prevent monopolistic pricing while allowing firms to earn a fair return on investment.<ref name=":0" /> Common approaches include rate-of-return regulation (limiting profits to a specified percentage of capital investment) and price cap regulation (capping annual price increases according to formulas that consider inflation and expected productivity gains).

*'''Merger review'''
*:Regulatory agencies evaluate proposed mergers and acquisitions to prevent excessive market concentration. The FTC and DOJ require companies to notify them of large transactions before completion and can challenge deals that would substantially reduce competition. For example, in 2024, judges blocked the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertson's grocery chains due to concerns about reduced competition in local markets.

*'''Structural remedies'''
*:Regulators may impose structural remedies such as requiring monopolists to divest certain assets or business units to restore competition. The breakup of Standard Oil in 1911 and AT&T in 1984 represent historical examples of structural approaches to monopoly power.

*'''Behavioral remedies'''
*:Regulators may impose behavioral restrictions on how firms conduct business. The settlement in the Microsoft case required the company to share application programming interfaces with third-party developers and refrain from retaliating against computer manufacturers that used competing software.

====International perspectives====
Antitrust approaches vary across countries, though convergence has increased with globalization. The European Union has generally taken a more aggressive stance toward technology monopolies than the United States, imposing substantial fines on companies like Google for anti-competitive practices. Many countries have established sector-specific regulators for industries like telecommunications, energy, and transportation where monopoly concerns are particularly pronounced. International coordination on antitrust enforcement has grown as markets become increasingly global, though significant differences in legal frameworks and enforcement priorities remain across jurisdictions.

===Digital platform monopolies===
The rise of digital platforms has challenged traditional antitrust frameworks, as companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook achieve dominance through network effects, data control, and platform ecosystems rather than conventional market concentration. These firms often provide "free" services to consumers while monetizing attention and data, complicating traditional market definition and power assessment in antitrust analysis. Some economists argue that digital markets tend toward natural monopoly characteristics due to strong network effects and low marginal costs, potentially requiring new regulatory approaches.

===The innovation trade-off===
A persistent debate concerns whether monopoly power inhibits or promotes innovation. The traditional view holds that competition spurs innovation while monopoly stagnates it. Some economists argue that the prospect of achieving temporary monopoly profits provides crucial incentives for innovation that competitive markets cannot match. This perspective suggests that certain forms of monopoly power might be desirable when they result from and reward innovative activity, particularly in industries with high research and development costs like pharmaceuticals.

===Consumer welfare standard===
Antitrust enforcement in recent decades has predominantly focused on the consumer welfare standard, which prioritizes price effects above other considerations.

Some critics argue this approach has been too permissive of increasing market concentration, advocating for broader considerations including worker welfare, small business impacts, and political democracy.

----

<references />

Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act

2025-11-05T23:53:08Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite errors

[[Category:Legislation]]
[[wikipedia:Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act|The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]] (The Act) is a landmark U.S. federal law (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) enacted on January 4, 1975, to govern consumer product warranties. Sponsored by Senator Warren G. Magnuson and Representative John E. Moss, the Act was designed to address widespread misuse of warranties by manufacturers, particularly through unfair disclaimers and misleading practices.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Brooks |first=Michael |date= |title=Magnuson-Moss Overview |url=https://www.autosafety.org/magnuson-moss-overview/ |website=autosaftey.org }}</ref>
===Purpose===
The intention of The Act is to establish federal standards for warranty content and disclosure, make warranties more transparent and enforceable for consumers, and to enhance the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) consumer protection capabilities.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Conn |first=Elliot |date=August 26, 2023 |title=Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: A Guide for Consumers |url=https://connlawpc.com/blog/magnuson-moss-warranty-act/ |website= }}</ref>

===Key provisions===
Warranty disclosure standards
:Warranties must be written in clear, simple language and disclose terms conspicuously, they must specify:
:*Coverage details and duration.
:*Remedies available.
:*Exclusions and limitations.
:*Procedures for obtaining service.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law {{!}} Federal Trade Commission |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law |website=ftc.gov}}</ref>
===Full vs. limited warranties===
'''Full warranty'''
:Must meet federal minimum standards including free repair/replacement, no time limits on implied warranties, and option for refund/replacement after reasonable repair attempts.<ref name=":1"></ref>
'''Limited warranty'''
:Any warranty that doesn't meet full warranty standards must be conspicuously designated as "limited".
'''Implied warranties'''
:The Act preserves state-law implied warranties (merchantability and fitness for particular purpose) and prohibits their disclaimer when a written warranty is provided.<ref name=":3"></ref>
===Prohibitions===
*Tie-In sales provisions: Manufacturers cannot require use of specific brands/parts (e.g., OEM parts) unless provided free of charge.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) |url=https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues/Magnuson-Moss-Warranty-Act |website=Auto Care Association}}</ref> <ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2018-07-31 |title=Navigating Aftermarket Parts and Car Warranties |url=https://ecogard.com/resources/articles/magnuson-moss-protection-consumers-installers/ |website=ECOGUARD}}</ref>
*Deceptive warranty terms: Warranties cannot mislead consumers about coverage or contain unfulfillable promises.<ref name=":3"></ref>
*Disclaimer of implied warranties: When a written warranty or service contract is offered, implied warranties cannot be disclaimed.<ref name=":3"></ref>
===Consumer remedies===
Legal action: Consumers can sue for breach of warranty and recover:
*Damages
*Costs and expenses
*Attorney's fees (a significant provision making lawsuits economically viable).<ref name=":1"></ref>
Alternative dispute resolution: The FTC encourages informal settlement procedures, though pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses are controversial.<ref name=":1"></ref>
===Scope and limitations===
*Applies only to consumer products (tangible personal property for personal/household use) costing more than $15.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=Text of S. 356 (93rd): Magnuson-Moss Act (Passed Congress version) |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/s356/text |website=GovTrack}}</ref>
*Does not require products to have warranties, can be sold "as is".
*Primarily covers written warranties, oral promises are excluded.<ref name=":1"></ref>
*Does not preempt state laws, working alongside state lemon laws and UCC provisions.<ref name=":1"></ref><ref name=":2"></ref>
==Historical enforcement incidents==
*General Motors Engine Interchange Litigation (1981): A class action alleged GM breached warranties by using Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobiles without disclosure. The case involved both written warranty and implied warranty claims under The Act.<ref name=":1"></ref>
*Skelton v. General Motors (1981): The 7th Circuit ruled that general advertising claims don't constitute "written warranties" under The Act, limiting the scope of actionable warranty statements.
*Kolev v. Porsche Cars North America (2011): Initially found pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses violated The Act, though this decision was later withdrawn.
*Hyundai/Kia Theta II Engine Case (2018): The FTC issued compliance warnings against Hyundai and Kia for attempting to require use of OEM parts to maintain warranty coverage, violating tie-in sales prohibitions. The companies revised their warranty language after FTC intervention.<ref name=":1"></ref><ref name=":5"></ref>
*FTC's 2018 Industry-Wide Compliance Warnings: The FTC issued warnings to six major companies about illegal warranty terms, particularly regarding tie-in provisions and improper warranty voiding practices.<ref name=":5"></ref>
''The Act'' is an important piece of legislation, but its enforcement is a mixed bag. Although it is enforced, often the fines are little to nothing, which encourages manufacturers to disregard it. This effectively prevents the act from properly keeping vendors accountable.

Toyota held liable for all damages in used car's in-warranty repair case - June 16, 1992. <ref name=":10">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129195115/https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/1992/9110dc643-1.html "Ismael v. Goodman Toyota"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-29</ref>

"Due to the purchase of the subject vehicle in used `as is' condition, the Defendant (Toyota) dealer assumed and bore no responsibility for subsequent repair of the vehicle or its road worthiness. " the plaintiff (vehicle owner) was found to be correct and the defendant (Toyota) was found liable for damages plaintiff (vehicle owner) suffered as a result of that violation<ref name=":10" />

==References==
<references />
[[Category:US legislation]]

Thinkpad X1 Carbon

2025-11-05T23:42:09Z

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Repairability and upgradability */ fixed cite errors

{{Incomplete}}

The Lenovo X1 Carbon is a laptop series made by [[Lenovo]], a Chinese-American multinational technology company, advertised as portable, thin and durable, while offering "full PC power and functionality".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Compare Different ThinkPad Models {{!}} Lenovo Egypt |url=https://www.lenovo.com/eg/en/faqs/laptop-faqs/best-thinkpad-for-you/ |access-date=2025-08-22}}</ref>

This article outlines the various anti-consumer measures used in the Lenovo X1 Carbon series of laptops. Some concepts may overlap with [[Lenovo]]'s general practices.

===Hardware-vendor lockout (BIOS whitelist)===
Most models of the Lenovo X1 Carbon will fail to post if the user changes their WWAN broadband card to a WWAN card that is not on the Lenovo Vendor Whitelist.<ref name=":1">[https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/ThinkPad_mobile_Internet "ThinkPad mobile Internet"] - wiki.archlinux.org</ref> If a user intends to use a WWAN card manufactured by another company, which are typically cheaper than the Lenovo factory-installed WWAN cards, the computer will not boot until the user removes the card. Evasion of these whitelists has been outlined in the Arch Linux wiki,<ref name=":1" /> but success is very limited.

====Resulting cost for the consumer====
Lenovo currently charges $298 USD to install a Quectel RM520N-GL 5G Sub6 from the factory.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Lenovo store screenshot.png|thumb|right| Pricing options for WWAN card (Lenovo X1 Carbon gen2) <ref name=":0"> [[:File:Lenovo store screenshot.png|Screenshot or pricing options for WWAN card of Lenovo Laptop]]</ref>]]

Some used options of similar modems can, at the time of writing, be purchased for $150 USD.<ref>[https://www.ebay.com/itm/296886818084 "Quectel RM520N-GL"] - ebay.com - 17 Jan 2025 - Archived Page: https://archive.is/IkmZV</ref> 4G modems can be purchased for less.<ref>[https://www.ebay.com/itm/196914042141 "NEW Dell V8KN6 Sierra Wireless AirPrime EM7455 DW5811e LTE 4G WWAN Card"] - ebay.com - 17 Jan 2025 - Archived Page: https://archive.is/uSubr</ref>

==Thinkpad X1 Carbon sub series==

==='''Repairability and upgradability'''===
The 10th gen Lenovo X1 Carbon uses soldered RAM<ref>{{Cite web |last=Iliev |first=Alex |date=14 Oct 2022 |title=Inside Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 10th Gen – disassembly and upgrade options |url=https://laptopmedia.com/highlights/inside-lenovo-thinkpad-x1-carbon-10th-gen-disassembly-and-upgrade-options/ |website=laptopmedia.com}}</ref> which makes upgrading it impossible. The display and the bezels of the LCD are glued together, making replacing just the LCD without replacing the entire lid complicated.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SOLVED: How to replace the LCD screen without replacing the whole lid? - Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 10th Gen - iFixit |url=https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/772580/How+to+replace+the+LCD+screen+without+replacing+the+whole+lid |access-date=2025-08-22}}</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Lenovo X1 Carbon]]