California Legal Brief

The Rule of Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts is that collecting and maintaining individuals' ALPR information without implementing and making public the statutorily required policy harms these individuals by violating their right to know, under the California Automated License Plate Recognition Law (Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.551).

Appeal from judgment after demurrer sustained without leave to amend in Superior Court, San Francisco City & County.

Defendant Appellant was Parking Concepts, Inc. — the parking garage operator that automatically collected license plate information without implementing required privacy policies.

Plaintiff Respondent was Brendan P. Bartholomew — the customer who parked at the garage multiple times and had his license plate information collected.

The suit sounded in violations of the ALPR Law, unfair competition law, and constitutional right to privacy. Cross-claims were not applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that when Plaintiff parked at Parking Concepts' garage, he pressed a button at a kiosk and received a printed parking ticket displaying his license plate number along with date and time. When exiting, he paid at a pay station and drove to an exit kiosk that displayed his license plate number before automatically lifting the barrier arm. Plaintiff alleged Parking Concepts operated an ALPR system but failed to implement or make publicly available a usage and privacy policy as required by law.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court sustained Parking Concepts' demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that Plaintiff failed to allege harm within the meaning of the ALPR Law and failed to sufficiently allege operation of an ALPR system.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Parking Concepts operated an ALPR system 2. Whether collecting ALPR information without implementing required privacy policies constitutes "harm" under the ALPR Law 3. Whether Plaintiff had standing for UCL and constitutional privacy claims

The Appellate Court held that collecting and using license plate information without implementing the statutorily required policy governing collection and use constitutes harm under the ALPR Law because it violates individuals' right to know how their data is being used, but affirmed dismissal of the UCL and constitutional privacy claims for failure to allege sufficient injury.

The case is inapplicable when ALPR operators have properly implemented and made publicly available the required usage and privacy policies, or when plaintiffs can demonstrate actual economic injury from privacy violations sufficient for UCL standing, or when ALPR collection involves widespread surveillance rather than single-location collection that can be avoided.

The case leaves open whether collecting and maintaining ALPR information with a usage and privacy policy that does not include every component identified in section 1798.90.51, subdivision (b)(2) would cause such harm, and what specific factual circumstances might constitute a "serious invasion of privacy" for constitutional claims involving ALPR systems.