Should Flock Safety be held liable for misuse of its license-plate surveillance network?
Four proceedings naming Flock challenge its safeguards and responsibility for tracking or data misuse. The company disputes liability and points to customer control and police decisions.
Claim in dispute
Flock's operation of the network and insufficient safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and harms that justify an injunction against the company.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Chrisanna Elser's October 5, 2026 Colorado complaint alleges that police wrongly accused her of a $25 porch theft and that Flock's network and inadequate safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and other harms. Her lawyer, Andy McNulty, seeks an injunction against Flock. The company says its system correctly located her vehicle and that police were responsible for interpreting that evidence. The dispute is not a claim that the camera misread her plate.
Two separate Georgia complaints broaden the question beyond Elser. Grace Schulte sued Flock on August 25, and Jarrod Whitson sued on September 11, alleging privacy and negligence harms from foreseeable misuse and insufficient controls. Their requested class relief is not a certified class.
In California's consolidated litigation, plaintiffs allege deficient usage policies, unauthorized sharing, security and audit failures, and invasion of privacy. Flock's July 30 dismissal motion says customers control sharing, disputes the duties attributed to it and argues that the plaintiffs have not pleaded concrete harm. The California case includes standing and jurisdiction questions as well as the underlying privacy claims.
These four proceedings name Flock or Flock Group directly, but they do not present identical legal theories. The California consolidated group counts as one proceeding here. Lawsuits against cities or police officials, and criminal rulings about police searches, are related evidence rather than additional company-defendant lawsuits. Complaints and dismissal arguments do not establish liability or exoneration.
Timeline
8 timeline entries on this page. Dates: September 27, 2025 to October 5, 2026
September 2025
1 event
Elser is cited for a porch theft she disputes
Incident
According to her later complaint, police cite Elser after using Flock records to track her vehicle. She says police ignored evidence placing her elsewhere.
[01]Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendants
Elser alleges that police falsely accused her of porch theft and that Flock's system and safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and other harms.
Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendantsD. Colo. 1:26-cv-04977; complaint, factual allegations and claims for relief
172 days between recorded events
March 2026
1 event
California Flock litigation enters federal court
The California proceeding is removed to federal court. This date is federal removal, not the original state filing.
[02]California consolidated Flock litigation docket
The docket distinguishes consolidation, individual withdrawals, standing proceedings and case-management scheduling.
California consolidated Flock litigation docketN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; removal, consolidation and entries through October 1, 2026
72 days between recorded events
May 2026
1 event
California Flock cases are consolidated
The court consolidates related California complaints in one proceeding against Flock Group.
[02]California consolidated Flock litigation docket
The docket distinguishes consolidation, individual withdrawals, standing proceedings and case-management scheduling.
California consolidated Flock litigation docketN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; removal, consolidation and entries through October 1, 2026
41 days between recorded events
July 2026
2 events
California plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint
Claim
The plaintiffs allege unlawful sharing, deficient policies, inadequate security and audits, and invasion of privacy.
[03]California consolidated amended complaint against Flock Group
The plaintiffs allege deficient usage policies, unauthorized sharing, security and audit failures, and invasion of privacy under California law.
California consolidated amended complaint against Flock GroupN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 52; allegations and claims for reliefFlock asks to dismiss the California claims
Reaction
Flock defends its practices, points to customer control of sharing and disputes the pleaded harm and legal duties.
[04]Flock Group's motion to dismiss the California consolidated claims
Flock disputes its liability, says customers control sharing, defends its safeguards and argues that plaintiffs have not pleaded concrete harm.
Flock Group's motion to dismiss the California consolidated claims · Flock SafetyN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 54; 22-page dismissal motion
26 days between recorded events
August 2026
1 event
Grace Schulte sues Flock in Georgia
Claim
Schulte seeks class relief for alleged privacy and negligence harms from the network's safeguards and foreseeable misuse.
[05]Grace Schulte's complaint against Flock Group
Schulte alleges foreseeable misuse of location data, inadequate safeguards and privacy and negligence violations. Class certification is requested, not established.
Grace Schulte's complaint against Flock GroupN.D. Ga. 1:26-cv-04843-MLB; complaint and requested class relief
17 days between recorded events
September 2026
1 event
Jarrod Whitson files a separate Georgia lawsuit
Claim
Whitson's complaint raises privacy, negligence and related claims against Flock Group in a separate proceeding.
[06]Jarrod Whitson's complaint against Flock Group
Whitson alleges privacy and negligence harms from Flock's network and its safeguards. The filing is distinct from Schulte's lawsuit.
Jarrod Whitson's complaint against Flock GroupN.D. Ga. 1:26-cv-05256-MLB; complaint and requested class relief
24 days between recorded events
October 2026
1 event
Elser sues Flock and Colorado police defendants
Claim
Elser's federal complaint seeks relief against the company, two towns and police officers over the tracking and wrongful theft accusation.
[01]Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendants
Elser alleges that police falsely accused her of porch theft and that Flock's system and safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and other harms.
Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendantsD. Colo. 1:26-cv-04977; complaint, factual allegations and claims for relief
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Flock's operation of the network and insufficient safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and harms that justify an injunction against the company.
Sources (1)
- Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendantsD. Colo. 1:26-cv-04977; complaint, factual allegations and claims for relief
Disputed claim
Flock is not liable under the California plaintiffs' theories because customers control sharing, its practices meet its duties and the alleged harm is insufficiently pleaded.
Flock Safety
Sources (1)
- Flock Group's motion to dismiss the California consolidated claims · Flock SafetyN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 54; 22-page dismissal motion
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 3. Dates: July 30, 2026 to October 7, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
1 response on this page
Flock SafetyCorporate defendant speaking through its court-filed motionDirectly involved"Sharing options are customer-controlled: each customer can choose to share access to its data with others on a one-to-one basis or on a geographic basis."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Flock is not liable under the California plaintiffs' theories because customers control sharing, its practices meet its duties and the alleged harm is insufficiently pleaded.
Read more
Flock defends its practices and argues that the California plaintiffs have not established a basis for liability.
Before the statement
The consolidated complaint alleges unlawful sharing, inadequate controls and privacy injury.
After the statement
The defense also disputes concrete injury and the application of California's public-agency sharing rule to a private company.
Flock Group's motion to dismiss the California consolidated claims · Flock SafetyN.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 54; 22-page dismissal motionWhy this label?
The motion justifies the company's disputed practices and argues that they satisfy its duties.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(8)
Original text
Chrisanna Elser's complaint against Flock Group and Colorado police defendants
Relevant passage: D. Colo. 1:26-cv-04977; complaint, factual allegations and claims for relief
About this source
Elser alleges that police falsely accused her of porch theft and that Flock's system and safeguards contributed to unlawful tracking and other harms.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Courthouse News publishes Flock's response to Elser's complaint
Relevant passage: Elser's allegations and Flock's emailed spokesperson statement
About this source
The report attributes Flock's account of accurate location evidence and police responsibility to a company spokesperson.
- Accessed
Original text
California consolidated Flock litigation docket
Relevant passage: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; removal, consolidation and entries through October 1, 2026
About this source
The docket distinguishes consolidation, individual withdrawals, standing proceedings and case-management scheduling.
- Accessed
Original text
Flock Group's motion to dismiss the California consolidated claims
Relevant passage: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 54; 22-page dismissal motion
About this source
Flock disputes its liability, says customers control sharing, defends its safeguards and argues that plaintiffs have not pleaded concrete harm.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
California consolidated amended complaint against Flock Group
Relevant passage: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-02375-VC; ECF 52; allegations and claims for relief
About this source
The plaintiffs allege deficient usage policies, unauthorized sharing, security and audit failures, and invasion of privacy under California law.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Jarrod Whitson's complaint against Flock Group
Relevant passage: N.D. Ga. 1:26-cv-05256-MLB; complaint and requested class relief
About this source
Whitson alleges privacy and negligence harms from Flock's network and its safeguards. The filing is distinct from Schulte's lawsuit.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Grace Schulte's complaint against Flock Group
Relevant passage: N.D. Ga. 1:26-cv-04843-MLB; complaint and requested class relief
About this source
Schulte alleges foreseeable misuse of location data, inadequate safeguards and privacy and negligence violations. Class certification is requested, not established.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Denver7 interviews Elser's lawyer and publishes Flock's response
Relevant passage: Andy McNulty interview and attributed Flock statement
About this source
McNulty seeks an injunction against Flock. The company says its location evidence was accurate and police were responsible for interpreting it.
- Author
- Adria Iraheta
- Published
- Accessed
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Should Flock Safety be held liable for misuse of its license-plate surveillance network?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/flock-safety-lawsuits-company-liability-surveillance-misuse
The Dispute Index. "Should Flock Safety be held liable for misuse of its license-plate surveillance network?". First published: 2026-10-07. Last updated: 2026-10-08. https://disputeindex.com/cases/flock-safety-lawsuits-company-liability-surveillance-misuse