In 2021, California resident Guillermo Mata sued Digital Recognition Network (“DRN”), a Texas-based, privately owned, automatic license plate recognition and data analytics software provider. The complaint alleges DRN violated California’s Automated License Plate Recognition (“ALPR”) statute. The Statute regulates the use of automatic license plate readers. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 23 million California residents in Superior Court in San Diego, California. The trial is set to begin on May 17, 2024. Let’s get into the details.
Background
For the first time, a class action lawsuit concerning geolocation privacy is headed for a jury trial in California. It concerns 23 million California residents represented by Edelson PC, a Chicago-based law firm. According to court documents, the lawsuit centers on “geolocation—the identification of location of an individual or an object using technology.”
The lead plaintiff alleges Defendant DRN “captured images of his vehicle’s license plate over 70 times and used it to create a timeline of his movements by gaining access to his work and home addresses.” According to the lawsuit, “information was then added to a marketing database available for sale by the Defendant” without the plaintiff’s awareness. Plaintiff alleges that these actions violate “the California License Plate Recognition Law by storing and selling such information without following state-mandated guidelines.”
Because California law stipulates that each class member is entitled to a $2,500 minimum payout, with 23 million people alleged to be part of the class, Plaintiffs seek damages “amounting to $57.5 billion in total, along with attorney fees and an injunction forbidding DRN from engaging in further ‘unlawful’ practices.”
In a tentative ruling handed down last September, the court granted Plaintiff’s class certification. That means that “all residents of California whose California license plate data was collected by Defendant [DRN] (either directly or through an affiliate) in the State of California at least fifteen times between June of 2017 and the date of the final judgment” will be automatically designated class members unless they opt out of the lawsuit.
Privacy Breach or Legitimate Data Collection?
According to the complaint, plaintiffs allege that DRN “used a series of cameras to record the license plate data of millions of vehicles,” –capturing license plate numbers, “along with date, time, and GPS location.” Plaintiffs alleged that DRN did not “provide the required notice to the vehicle owners, nor did it follow the relevant laws regarding data protection” in breach of California’s ALPR statute, which went into effect in 2016.
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Class Members argue that DRN’s actions amounted to an illegal “mass surveillance program.” Plaintiffs’ Attorney Eli Wade-Scott states that “DRN’s actions violate[d] California’s privacy laws and people’s civil liberties.” He further argues that “DRN is capturing a pretty detailed picture of people’s lives…That could be capturing you at home, at work, at your school, your house of worship, at your doctor.”
Defendant DRN, refuted these allegations, denying that the company’s actions violated California law. According to a report by Techspot News, DRN maintained that “neither Plaintiff nor any similarly situated person has suffered any harm,” further claiming that the law in question “does not prohibit the collection or storage of ALPR information.”
Predicting Outcomes and Consequences for Geolocation Privacy Suits
According to reporting by Legaltech News, if the plaintiff’s case makes its way to a jury and is successful, “the lawsuit could force state privacy laws to clarify their definition of ‘personal information,’ extending it to vehicles and ‘in-car activities.’ And, because DRN has advertised the collection of 20 billion scans of license plates across the U.S., the suit could spur similar litigation and investigations well beyond California.”
Privacy professionals predict that this lawsuit has unique potential for success because of “access to a private right of action under California law and the potential ability to prove unauthorized access by ALPR systems.” The California law has a broader private right of action, allowing this case to proceed. Moreover, a settlement or jury verdict could significantly impact ALPR and similar data-broker businesses.
Experts highlight that this lawsuit “comes at a unique time, as state and federal regulators across the country have been increasing their scrutiny on data brokers’ practices” and are growing concerned over the unauthorized use of geolocation data in business marketing practices. The plaintiffs’ lawyer maintains that this lawsuit is “the first trial putting the question of geolocation privacy to a jury” and that “privacy class actions have a resonating impact beyond the courtroom,” stating that if plaintiffs are successful, it “will be a watershed moment.”
Want Updates on a Case Impacting the Future of Geolocation Privacy?
For a more in-depth look into this case and to read the full complaint, check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.
Sources:
https://trellis.law/case/37-2021-00023321-cu-mc-ctl/mata-vs-digital-recognition-network-inc
Music: Disruptor’s Dance by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason
