Flock Safety: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 81:

Multiple independent user reviews on {{Wplink|Trustpilot}}, as well as reports 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 thirty-day termination notice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fiala |first=Steven |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Steven Fiala on 1/8/2025 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/677ef12bc84c2a5269f7cb9c |website=Trustpilot |date=8 Jan 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108013844/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/677ef12bc84c2a5269f7cb9c |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not offer a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="TrustPilot RR">{{Cite web |last=Rodriguez |first=Ruben |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Ruben Rodriguez on 10/13/2023 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/65292d1cd90a6358742b453b |website=Trustpilot |date=13 Oct 2023 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108014407/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/65292d1cd90a6358742b453b |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij" />

*Jurisdictions such as the city of Dayton, Ohio and Evanston, Illinois have had to resort to covering cameras with black garbage bags due to the friction involved in removing flock cameras. These actions were taken pending their eventual removal. Cities that are reconsidering their contracts have done so mostly due to public protest and security concerns.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |title=Cities Are Covering Flock Cameras With Trash Bags |url=https://www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags/ |website=404 Media |date=28 May 2026 |access-date=31 May 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260528162451/https://www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags/ |archive-date=28 May 2026}}</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 SE">{{Cite web |last=Elliott |first=Steve |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Steve Elliott on 6/20/2025 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/68553b4c0981a42b5f818398 |website=Trustpilot |date=20 Jun 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108020837/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/68553b4c0981a42b5f818398 |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> 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 RR" />

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 Multiple independent user reviews on {{Wplink|Trustpilot}}, as well as reports 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 thirty-day termination notice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fiala |first=Steven |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Steven Fiala on 1/8/2025 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/677ef12bc84c2a5269f7cb9c |website=Trustpilot |date=8 Jan 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108013844/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/677ef12bc84c2a5269f7cb9c |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> Another customer claimed the company would not offer a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."<ref name="TrustPilot RR">{{Cite web |last=Rodriguez |first=Ruben |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Ruben Rodriguez on 10/13/2023 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/65292d1cd90a6358742b453b |website=Trustpilot |date=13 Oct 2023 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108014407/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/65292d1cd90a6358742b453b |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."<ref name="ij" />
+*Jurisdictions such as the city of Dayton, Ohio and Evanston, Illinois have had to resort to covering cameras with black garbage bags due to the friction involved in removing flock cameras. These actions were taken pending their eventual removal. Cities that are reconsidering their contracts have done so mostly due to public protest and security concerns.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |title=Cities Are Covering Flock Cameras With Trash Bags |url=https://www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags/ |website=404 Media |date=28 May 2026 |access-date=31 May 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260528162451/https://www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags/ |archive-date=28 May 2026}}</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 SE">{{Cite web |last=Elliott |first=Steve |title=Flock Safety reviewed by Steve Elliott on 6/20/2025 |url=https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/68553b4c0981a42b5f818398 |website=Trustpilot |date=20 Jun 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260108020837/https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/68553b4c0981a42b5f818398 |archive-date=8 Jan 2026}}</ref> 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 RR" />