Decentralized camera networks have ignited fear and distrust among Americans suspicious of surveillance technology, and not without good reason. Law enforcement abuses of Flock Safety cameras have led to firings and backlash across the country, but Flock is only one company of many in the mass surveillance field. For several years, one Californian has pursued a lawsuit against Digital Recognition Network (DRN) to block its collection of license plate data in the state, claiming that it violates California law.
DRN maintains a network of cameras and readers that collect license plate information for private investigators, primarily those in the repossession business. Guillermo Mata has sought to lead a class action lawsuit against DRN, with a class of almost all Californians who had their cars photographed by DRN’s cameras. Civil liberties advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU spoke out in support of Mata’s suit.
On July 20, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected Mata’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal held that Mata has no standing — that is, Mata cannot sue because he personally cannot show any “actual harm.” Yet the case poses urgent questions: in the context of the right to privacy, what actually is harm? And who can enforce the right to be free of that harm?
Mata’s Grounds for His Lawsuit
Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) are legal in California, although the state has passed a set of laws to regulate their use (California Civil Code §§1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55). Among other things, these laws require ALPR operators to “maintain reasonable security procedures and practices … to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access [and] use.” They must also “implement a usage and privacy policy [available to the public in writing] in order to ensure that the collection [and] use … of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. ”
The law also gives an individual the right to sue if they have been “harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information.” See §1798.90.54. The suit must be against someone “who knowingly caused the harm.”
In 2021, Mata filed a class action lawsuit against DRN on a single count: an allegation that DRN violated § 1798.90.54 by harvesting Mata’s license plate data from its cameras. In his complaint, Mata uses DRN’s own claims of capability to outline the harms that the company causes him and other Californian drivers.
The complaint states: “DRN’s automatic license plate readers …. pose serious concerns to individuals. License plate data, together with date/time and GPS coordinates, can reveal a vehicle’s historical travel … sensitive information that individuals may not wish to share (or allow anyone to monetize).” Furthermore, Mata claimed that DRN’s usage and privacy policy only “pay[s] lip service to privacy laws” and does not demonstrate any respect for privacy or civil liberties, as ALPR law requires.
Mata’s complaint sought to certify most Californian drivers in DRN’s database as members of the suit’s class. As relief, Mata requested an injunction, together with liquidated damages, punitive damages, and costs.
Theories of Harm and the Courts’ Response
Mata did not claim that DRN’s collection caused him a traditional civil injury. Instead, Mata claimed that he and the class “have been harmed … because their private and sensitive personal information has been improperly collected and used without their notice or consent.” That is why the San Diego Superior Court entered judgment against Mata, stating that he had “not sustained any physical, mental, or monetary injury.” Mata appealed.
The ACLU and the EFF filed a joint amicus brief in appellate court, advocating for an expanded theory of harm. In their brief, the civil rights watchdogs state that ALPR readers have already endangered women exercising reproductive rights (on false premises), people threatened by ICE, and even the ex-partners of multiple police officers. The “initial harm” that the brief asserts is in the collection of the data itself, as studies show that surveillance has a chilling effect on legally protected behavior, even affecting possible medical and financial choices. They also argue that DRN’s collection violates the state constitutional right to privacy and the case law that follows it.
Although conceding that “the fear is understandable,” the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment because Mata had not been “directly harmed.” In another California appeals court case, Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., the court determined the plaintiff showed “harm” because a parking garage ALPR had collected his plate number without establishing a privacy policy, as the law required. But in Mata’s case, he did not allege that DRN had violated any specific statutory requirement or that anyone had accessed or misused his particular data. As such, the appeals court rejected his arguments.
The Advocates’ Position: “Privacy Harm Is Harm”
That is how the EFF puts its view in its support for Mata’s lawsuits. In the years since the beginning of his litigation, public anger and suspicion against mass surveillance tools have intensified. The pushback has resulted in organized opposition and led some cities to give up their contracts.
Will the broader theory of privacy harm find support in the state’s higher courts or in other U.S. litigation? In a time of snap federal law enforcement crackdowns, it is difficult to see whether courts or even legislation will create change in the near future. In the meantime, visible ALPR cameras are increasingly at risk of vandalism — or even just trash bags.
