ALPR Companies Face Senate Testimony This Week

Three recent developments have put automated license plate recognition back in the spotlight, including one involving Digital Recognition Network (DRN), a company familiar to many in the recovery industry.

In July, a California appeals court affirmed a judgment in favor of DRN in Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc., California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, case D084781. The underlying San Diego Superior Court case is 37-2021-00023321-CU-MC-CTL. The court held that a person bringing a claim under California’s ALPR statute must demonstrate actual harm resulting from a statutory violation. The court did not decide whether DRN violated the ALPR statute; the case was resolved on the issue of whether the plaintiff had demonstrated the required harm.

That decision is now being challenged. The case is before the California Supreme Court as S298319, Mata v. Digital Recognition Network (Aker). On September 10, the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to review the case. Their position is that the collection and retention of ALPR information can itself constitute the type of privacy harm contemplated by California law. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision on whether it will grant review.

Then, on September 2, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley sent Motorola Solutions CEO Greg Brown a request for information concerning the company’s AI-powered surveillance and ALPR systems. The inquiry asks about data collection, retention, access, searches, security, accuracy and information sharing. The letter is an investigative request for information and does not constitute a finding that Motorola has violated any law.

There is now another date to watch. Hawley has invited the CEOs of Flock Safety, Axon Enterprise, Motorola Solutions and Verkada to testify before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism on September 23 concerning AI-powered surveillance networks. Motorola CEO Greg Brown is among those invited.

For the recovery industry, these developments are worth following because they involve questions that extend beyond the technology itself: how ALPR information is collected, how long it is retained, who can access it, how searches are conducted, how information is shared, and what legal protections apply to the people whose vehicles are captured.

The California litigation and the congressional inquiry are separate matters, and neither establishes wrongdoing by DRN or Motorola. But both developments demonstrate that the legal and regulatory questions surrounding ALPR technology continue to evolve.