Judge Chhabria: Flock Data Sharing Suit Likely State Court Remand

• A federal judge is inclined to rule that plaintiffs in a Flock data sharing lawsuit lack Article III standing due to insufficient personal injury.
• The judge also indicated he would likely remand the case, originally filed in state court, back to state jurisdiction.
• Plaintiffs allege Flock illegally allows out-of-state agencies to access ALPR data, violating the California ALPR Privacy Act of 2015.
• The judge questioned the material distinction between in-state and out-of-state data sharing as a basis for injury.
• This development suggests that future data privacy challenges requiring concrete injury may increasingly be heard in state courts.

This development underscores the critical importance of establishing concrete injury for Article III standing in federal data privacy litigation.

A federal judge has indicated a strong likelihood that a significant data privacy lawsuit targeting automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology provider Flock will be sent back to state court. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria expressed his inclination to rule that the plaintiffs, a group of California drivers, lack the necessary Article III standing to pursue their claims in federal court, primarily due to an absence of demonstrated personal injuries. This development underscores the critical importance of establishing concrete injury for Article III standing in federal data privacy litigation.

Judge Chhabria’s stance suggests a potential jurisdictional shift for this type of automated license plate reader litigation. While acknowledging the plaintiffs' allegations against Flock, the judge questioned the fundamental premise of their federal claim, particularly the distinction between data sharing with in-state versus out-of-state agencies. His remarks point towards a future where similar challenges against ALPR data sharing may increasingly be heard in state courts, impacting the enforcement landscape for privacy regulations like the California ALPR Privacy Act.

The lawsuit centers on Flock's extensive network of automated license plate readers, which are strategically positioned on public thoroughfares. These devices continuously capture detailed snapshots of passing vehicles, recording their make, model, license plate number, precise time, and direction of travel. This collected information is routinely transmitted to local governmental bodies and frequently utilized by law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes.

At the heart of the plaintiffs' allegations is the claim that Flock has unlawfully facilitated access to this sensitive data by out-of-state entities, often routing such access through local police departments. This practice, they contend, directly contravenes the 2015 California ALPR Privacy Act. This state legislation explicitly prohibits local law enforcement from disseminating ALPR data to federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as to police departments located outside California. One complaint, filed in San Francisco Superior Court this past February and later consolidated with approximately a dozen others before moving to federal court, highlighted an instance where agencies reportedly conducted over 1.6 million searches of the San Francisco Police Department’s ALPR database between August 2024 and February 2025. Plaintiffs describe Flock's system as an "Orwellian mass-surveillance infrastructure that is practically impossible to avoid, particularly for anyone operating a vehicle in the towns and cities across this country where Flock has installed its cameras."

Central to Judge Chhabria's skepticism was the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient for federal court jurisdiction. He articulated a fundamental principle of federal litigation, stating that "A violation of the law is not, in itself, an Article III injury, as we all know." The judge pressed the plaintiffs' legal counsel, Mickey Terlep, to identify a "cognizable injury" stemming from Flock's alleged data sharing practices.

Mr. Terlep countered by asserting that the injury lies in "The disclosure of sensitive information, such as movements to seek medical care. Which is entirely unavoidable unless they choose not to drive on public roads." However, Judge Chhabria remained unconvinced by the distinction drawn by the plaintiffs between in-state and out-of-state data sharing. He questioned why, if hundreds of in-state agencies accessing Flock's data was deemed permissible, access by thousands of out-of-state agencies would constitute a distinct injury. The judge remarked, "I just don’t see a material distinction between those." In response, Mr. Terlep emphasized that "The state line really does matter," providing an example of an individual reportedly tracked after traveling from Texas to receive an abortion.

Beyond the question of Article III standing data privacy, Judge Chhabria also conveyed his belief that his federal court lacked jurisdiction over the case entirely. This jurisdictional ruling strongly suggests that the Flock data sharing suit will likely be remanded to the state court where it was initially filed. Such a move would shift the battleground for this significant automated license plate reader litigation from the federal system back to California's state judiciary.

This potential remand highlights a growing trend in data privacy cases, where the absence of a clearly defined, concrete injury can preclude federal court intervention. Lawyers assessing client claims in similar contexts should meticulously evaluate specific harms to meet federal standing requirements, or alternatively, prepare for potential state-level proceedings. For compliance officers, this development signals the increasing importance of monitoring evolving interpretations and enforcement of state-specific privacy acts, such as the California ALPR Privacy Act, as state courts may become the primary venue for adjudicating these complex data sharing disputes.

This development underscores the critical importance of establishing concrete injury for Article III standing in federal data privacy litigation, suggesting that similar challenges against ALPR data sharing may increasingly be heard in state courts. Lawyers should assess client claims for specific harm and prepare for potential state-level proceedings, while compliance officers should monitor evolving interpretations of state ALPR privacy acts.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service