The Rule of Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. is that collecting and using license plate information through an automated system without implementing and making publicly available the statutorily required usage and privacy policy constitutes "harm" under the ALPR Law sufficient to state a cause of action, under circumstances where an entity operates cameras and computer algorithms to automatically read and convert license plate images into computer-readable data.
Appeal from order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend in Superior Court, San Francisco County.
Defendant Appellant was Parking Concepts, Inc. — the parking garage operator that automatically collected license plate information without implementing required ALPR policies.
Plaintiff Respondent was Brendan P. Bartholomew — the customer who parked at the garage multiple times and whose license plate information was automatically collected and displayed.
The suit sounded in violations of California's automated license plate recognition system statutory scheme (Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.55), unfair competition law, and constitutional privacy rights.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that when Bartholomew parked at Parking Concepts' garage in 2022 and 2023, the facility used an automated system to capture his license plate number, which was then displayed on his parking ticket upon entry and on a kiosk screen upon exit, but Parking Concepts had not implemented or made publicly available a usage and privacy policy as required by the ALPR Law.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court sustained Parking Concepts' demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that Bartholomew failed to allege that Parking Concepts operated an ALPR system and failed to allege "harm" within the meaning of the ALPR Law.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged operation of an ALPR system 2. Whether collection and use of ALPR information without implementing required policies constitutes "harm" under the ALPR Law 3. Whether plaintiff established standing under the UCL 4. Whether the facts constitute a serious invasion of privacy under the California Constitution
The Appellate Court held that collecting and using license plate information through automated cameras and algorithms without implementing the statutorily required usage and privacy policy constitutes harm under the ALPR Law because it violates individuals' right to know how their data is collected and used, and undermines the accountability mechanisms central to the statutory scheme.
The case is inapplicable when the entity does not use automated systems with cameras and computer algorithms to capture and convert license plate images to computer-readable data, or when the required usage and privacy policy has been properly implemented and made publicly available.
The case leaves open whether different privacy expectations apply to ALPR collection in other contexts, the specific content requirements for compliant ALPR policies, and whether the scope of geographic coverage affects the harm analysis under the ALPR Law.
Counsel
For Appellant: Bursor & Fisher, L. Timothy Fisher, Julia K. Venditti and Philip L. Fraietta
For Respondent: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Craig J. Mariam, Michael J. Dailey and Katiuska Pimentel Vargas