Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Toyota

2026-03-09T22:41:52Z

Dreadhawk177: Added an entry for the shift in alerts that vaguely point owner's towards their dealers for help rather than communicate the underlying oil timer.

{{StubNotice}}
{{Tone}}
{{CompanyCargo
| Founded = 1937
| Industry = Automotive
| Logo = Toyota.png
| ParentCompany =
| Type = Public
| Website = https://toyota.com/
| Description = Toyota Motor Corporation, commonly known simply as Toyota, is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. This page contains topics related to business practices as well as products and/or services provided by the Toyota Motor Corporation and its subsidiary Lexus.
}}
'''[[Wikipedia:Toyota|Toyota Motor Corporation]]''', commonly known as '''Toyota''', is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. This page contains topics related to business practices as well as products and/or services provided by the Toyota Motor Corporation and its subsidiary [[wikipedia:Lexus|Lexus]].
==Incidents==
===GR Corolla engine fire denied warranty claims===
[[File:Toyota GR Corolla Fire .jpg|thumb|409x409px|Image of first burned Toyota GR Corolla ]]
[[File:Toyota GR Corolla Fire.webp|thumb|410x410px|Image of second burned Toyota GR Corolla]]

The Toyota GR Corolla is a high-performance hatchback released in 2022 and still for sale in the United States and other countries as of the time of writing. There have been at least 2 owners whose warranty claims have been denied by Toyota under suspicious circumstances.

The first owner suffered an engine fire, which resulted in the vehicle being totaled. Toyota denied the claim, asserting that the tires were the cause of the accident. The reply from Toyota's Engagement Center was: "''The owner's manual warns not drive [sic] in excess of the speed limit. Even if the legal speed limit permits it, do not drive over 85 mph unless your vehicle has high-speed capability tires. Driving over 85 mph may result in tire failure, loss of control and possible injury. Be sure to consult a tire dealer to determine whether the tires on your vehicle are high-speed capability tires or not before driving at such speeds. Based on our inspection findings and the facts relating to this incident, we cannot provide any assistance in this matter."''<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Christopher |date=7 Aug 2024 |title=Two GR Corollas Burned Down. Toyota Won’t Honor the Warranties |url=https://www.motor1.com/news/729265/toyota-gr-corolla-warranty-claims-weird-reasons/ |url-status=live |access-date=15 Mar 2025 |website=Motor1 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250813233052/https://www.motor1.com/news/729265/toyota-gr-corolla-warranty-claims-weird-reasons/ |archive-date=13 Aug 2025}}</ref> The Tires Fitted on the GR Corolla from the factory are Michelin Pilot Sport 4 tires that have a speed rating of 186mph.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 Tire |url=https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/tires/michelin-pilot-sport-all-season-4/m405250/#section:specs |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708192213/https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/tires/michelin-pilot-sport-all-season-4/m405250/ |archive-date=8 Jul 2025|access-date=15 May 2025 |website=Consumer Reports}}</ref>

The second owner suffered a more severe fire that completely destroyed the vehicle. Toyota denied his warranty claim, saying "''In response to your concerns, a vehicle inspection was conducted on June 6, 2024....The odometer reading at the last service visit was 8,146 miles. The vehicle was severely burned. A possible hole in the engine block was observed on the front side, near the rear of the engine. No data could be recovered from the vehicle due to the amount of extensive burn damage. Based on the inspection findings, the cause of the fire could not be determined. Therefore, we are unable to offer any assistance.”<ref name=":0" />''

Neither of these denials of warranty coverage has yet been supported by evidence from Toyota.

====Causes====
[[File:Toyota GR Corolla Marketing Material.png|thumb|GR Corolla tire specifications from Toyota's website]]
Owners and Mechanics have speculated on the cause of these engine failures. A video from PIRAS Motorsport disassembles the G16E GTS Engine found in the GR Corolla and proposes engine failure results from excessive engine tolerances.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piras Motorsport |date=29 Sep 2024 |title=What's Killing Your Toyota G16E GTS Engine? GR Yaris & GR Corolla |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1TONzhOxvs |url-status=live |access-date=15 Mar 2025 |website=[[YouTube]] |archive-url=https://preservetube.com/watch?v=h1TONzhOxvs |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref> Prevention measures recommended include disassembling the engine and replacing the connecting rods, pistons, and piston rings.

===Start the vehicle using my Toyota key fob===
Remote starting Toyotas with a key fob is now behind a pay wall<ref>{{Cite web |title=How do I start the vehicle using my Toyota key fob? |url=https://support.toyota.com/s/article/How-do-I-start-the-ve-7424?language=en_US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260222231520/https://support.toyota.com/s/article/How-do-I-start-the-ve-7424?language=en_US |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref>. A Remote Connect subscription is required for some vehicles to process the remote start radio signal sequence from the key fob.

===Crash protection is offered only on the driver's side===
Toyota has intentionally left out all the structural metal that can protect passengers in a small-overlap crash, and has only added it on the driver's side <ref> {{Cite web |title=Passenger side protection lacking in smaller crashes |url=https://youtube.com/watch?v=72caLypmKCA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200330162152/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72caLypmKCA |archive-date=30 Mar 2020}}</ref>

===Ending support of app suite ''(2023)''===
In 2023, [[Toyota]] decided to stop supporting the Toyota app suite, which included models as late as 2024, such as the 4Runner. Depending on the vehicle, Alexa, NPR One, iHeartRadio, LiveXLive, Scout GPS Link, Destination Search, Saved Destinations, H2 Station Finder (where applicable), Fuel, Sports, Stocks, Traffic, Weather. If your vehicle did not have Android Auto, you were out of luck for GPS and all other apps.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Toyota App Suite Sunset |url=https://support.toyota.com/s/article/Toyota-App-Suite-Retirement?language=en_US |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251011004024/https://support.toyota.com/s/article/Toyota-App-Suite-Retirement?language=en_US |archive-date=11 Oct 2025|website=Toyota Support}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Toyota App Suite being discontinued |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/172subi/toyota_app_suite_being_discontinued/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20231008115839/https://old.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/172subi/toyota_app_suite_being_discontinued/ |archive-date=8 Oct 2023|website=Reddit}}</ref>

MyToyota app, that replaced the Toyota Suite, has built-in paywall features for example for scheduled pre-heating of your car. This affects all Toyota models. They offer the service for free for 3 years after purchase, but then disable it forcing owners to either give that feature up or go into subscription model.

===Obfuscation of Maintenance Alerts ''(2016)''===
[[File:PriusMaintenanceRequired.jpg|thumb|alt=Dashboard with screen showing "Maintenance Required Visit Your Dealer"|Prius Prime dashboard alert for an oil change]]
Starting with the 2016 Prius, oil change alerts changed with a new generation of vehicle. Many static indicator lights were replaced with a simple screen message<ref>{{Cite web |title=2016 Prius Owner's Manual page 671 |url=https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/om-s/OM47A29U/pdf/OM47A29U.pdf#page=671}}</ref>. The oil change light in particular was replaced with the message "Maintenance Required Visit Your Dealer". This change obfuscated a regularly timed maintenance task, likely funneling customers towards corporate dealerships rather than making a decision based on the actual cause. In the owner's manual, it's noted that the original oil change light remains for Canada only<ref>{{Cite web |title=2016 Prius Owner's Manual page 105 |url=https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/om-s/OM47A29U/pdf/OM47A29U.pdf#page=105}}</ref>.

==References==
[[Category:Toyota]]
<references />

File:Prius Prime dashboard alert oil change.jpg

2026-03-09T22:33:03Z

Dreadhawk177:

2023 Prius Prime Dashboard alert for an oil change

Flock license plate readers

2025-12-09T16:05:40Z

Dreadhawk177: Updated number of cameras from "over 40,000" to "over 100,000" using eyesonflock.com as a source. While the 40k (and recent grown number) was based on mapped cameras, eyesonflock.com uses public audits to find a more accurate number.

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety |access-date=6 Dec 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5 |archive-date=6 Dec 2024 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 states in the U.S.A.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> According to the company's own marketing materials, Flock performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/iVsBZ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=19 Jun 2024 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619112629/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |archive-date=19 Jun 2024 |access-date=25 Aug 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like {{Wplink|Palantir Technologies|Palantir}}.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=11 Sep 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 100,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Eyes On Flock |url=https://eyesonflock.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230140/https://eyesonflock.com/ |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=9 Dec 2025 |work=Eyes On Flock}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle [[Device fingerprint|Fingerprints]]"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |date=23 Jul 2025 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250814053755/https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |archive-date=14 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics |title=Privacy & Ethics |work=Flock Safety |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref name="norfolk">{{Cite web |last=King |first=Dan |date=6 Feb 2024 |title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed |url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717001536/https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |archive-date=17 Jul 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Institute for Justice}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/DSqUM |archive-date=26 Oct 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2024 |title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional |url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250826013458/https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media}}</ref>

====="Anonymized Data"=====
While Flock's Terms and Conditions define "Anonymized Data" as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref name=":1" />

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2018-2024 demonstrate that "anonymized" vehicle location data can be re-identified with high accuracy. A 2022 study showed researchers could re-identify drivers from raw vehicle network data with 97% accuracy by exploiting inter-dependencies in sensor measurements.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404822002139 |title=Privacy-preserving vehicle trajectory matching |website=ScienceDirect |date=2022 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref> Research published in the Journal of Computer Science and Technology (2022) found that even three to four location points can uniquely identify individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sun |first=She |last2=Ma |first2=Shuai |last3=Song |first3=Jing-He |last4=Yue |first4=Wen-Hai |last5=Lin |first5=Xue-Lian |last6=Ma |first6=Tiejun |date=2022 |title=Experiments and Analyses of Anonymization Mechanisms for Trajectory Data Publishing |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |journal=Journal of Computer Science and Technology |doi=10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 USD per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279 |title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost? |work=City of Campbell |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |first=Jason |last=Koebler |date=6 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf |title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers |work=American Civil Liberties Union |date=2024 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states |title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States |work=Yes You Can Go |date=2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===
While marketed as "license plate readers,"' Flock cameras use what the company calls "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology which tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date= |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=usurped |access-date=26 Oct 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning "images into actionable evidence — no plate required."<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Plate Readers |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/D9JGD |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' and allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Patent for person identification by race and physical characteristics==
A U.S. Patent granted to Flock Group Inc. in August 2022 reveals the company has developed and patented technology to identify and classify people based on race, gender, and other physical characteristics.<ref name="patent11416545">{{Cite web |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf |title=System and Method for Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |date=16 Aug 2022 |access-date=21 Jan 2025 |format=PDF |first1=Garrett |last1=Langley |first2=Matt |last2=Feury }}</ref> Patent US 11,416,545 B1 describes a system that goes beyond vehicle identification to analyze human subjects captured in surveillance footage.

According to the patent documentation, when the system identifies a human being in captured footage, it uses neural network modules specifically configured to classify people by "male, female, race, etc." The patent further describes using additional neural networks to identify clothing types, estimate height and weight, and other physical characteristics of individuals.<ref name="patent11416545" /> The system can then store this classification data in searchable databases, allowing law enforcement to query for people based on these physical attributes.

The patent shows that Flock's technology is designed to create comprehensive profiles that can track individuals across multiple camera locations by matching physical characteristics. While Flock publicly markets its products as ''"license plate readers"'' focused on vehicles, this patent demonstrates the company has developed capabilities for detailed human surveillance and classification by protected characteristics including race and gender.<ref name="patent11416545" />

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that this technology could enable discriminatory policing practices and racial profiling at scale.{{Citation needed}} The ability to search for people by race or other physical characteristics across a network of thousands of cameras is a large expansion of surveillance capabilities beyond what is typically disclosed in Flock's public marketing materials.{{Citation needed}}

==Legal challenges==

===Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)''===
An Oregon resident filed public records requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

Some exemptions are given to deny public records request, particularly due to investigations. However, the judge dismissed the motion, declaring that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>

The judge stated:<ref name=":5" /><blockquote>“I do think that the information at stake does have serious privacy implications, but that’s not the analysis for the intelligence information exemption,” she said. “You also have to make a finding that this is specific intelligence information that is compiled by investigative or law enforcement agencies, and the information that’s being compiled here does not relate to a specific case or investigation. The public already knows that these cameras exist and are operated. Many of them are in sight. The information does not disclose particular methods or procedures for gathering or evaluating intelligence information.” </blockquote>

===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />

Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.

===State regulatory landscape===
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>

California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

==Notable incidents==

====Illinois audit findings (2024-2025)====
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced in late August 2024 that Flock Safety violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate data for immigration enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safetys-response-to-illinois-lpr-data-use-and-out-of-state-sharing-concerns|title=Flock Safety's Response to Illinois LPR Data Use and Out-of-State Sharing Concerns|website=Flock Safety|date=2024-08-25|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies revealed unauthorized pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, violating Illinois law prohibiting data sharing for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, and abortion-related matters. Following the audit, 47 out-of-state agencies were removed from access to Illinois data.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-pledges-changes-after-illinois-data-sharing-accusation|title=Flock Pledges Changes After Illinois Data-Sharing Accusation|website=Government Technology|date=2024-08-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Mount Prospect, Illinois reported 262 immigration-related license plate reader searches in just the first few months of 2025. A Palos Heights detective shared Flock login credentials with a DEA agent who conducted 28 unauthorized searches of Oak Park ALPR data explicitly labeled "immigration violation."<ref name="dea">{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====California violations (2015-2025)====
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27|title=California cops are breaking surveillance laws|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-07-23}}</ref>.

A 2023 EFF investigation found 71 California police agencies in 22 counties illegally shared data with out-of-state law enforcement. San Francisco Police Department alone allowed 1.6 million illegal searches by out-of-state agencies from 2024-2025.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/|title=SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-09-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The California Attorney General filed the first enforcement action against the City of El Cajon in 2025 for sharing with 26 states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out|title=Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data|website=California DOJ|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===False positive incidents===

====Families detained at gunpoint====
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740|website=KOAT|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

ALPR systems often misread license plates according to multiple investigations, leading to hardship & legal trouble for innocent civilians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/human-toll-alpr-errors|title=The Human Toll of ALPR Errors|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-11-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents===

In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife's movements over four months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Multiple other documented cases include Las Vegas Metro Officer Christopher Young arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases, and Riverside County Deputy Eric Piscatella pleading guilty in February 2024 to seven counts of misusing sheriff's department databases to stalk a woman he met at Coachella.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/02/16/las-vegas-police-officer-arrested-reportedly-stalking-ex-fiancee/?outputType=amp|title=Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée|website=FOX5 Vegas|date=2024-02-16|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Abortion and reproductive healthcare tracking===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They conducted searches across 83,000+ Flock cameras nationwide with the explicit reason: "had an abortion, search for female." The search accessed cameras across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2025/06/13/after-finding-fetal-remains-north-texas-cops-used-camera-network-to-search-for-woman/|title=After finding fetal remains, North Texas cops used camera network to search for woman|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-13|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down|title=She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Federal agency access===
Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains a $6.1 million contract giving 9,000+ ICE officers access to the Vigilant Solutions ALPR database containing over 5 billion location data points.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data|title=Documents Reveal ICE Using Driver Location Data From Local Police for Deportations|website=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The Drug Enforcement Administration operates a National License Plate Reader Program with over 10,000 license plate readers shared throughout the United States. 404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref name="dea" />

===Illegal Camera Installations===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

====='''Evanston, IL'''=====
Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city. The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment. Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=2025-09-25 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

'''0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:''' Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.146% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025-06-21|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velez |first=Abigail |date=2025-06-04 |title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate |url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CBS Austin}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Arizona deployments===
Sedona, Arizona became the first Arizona city to completely terminate its Flock Safety contract in September 2025 after citizen backlash. The city had installed 11 cameras in June 2025 without prior public notice at a cost of $51,146 for the first year. The council voted 5-1 to pause the program, then unanimously 7-0 on September 9 to permanently terminate after Flock CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company had been sharing data with federal agencies. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog called Flock "not an honorable company" for the conflicting data-sharing claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://westvalleyfamilies.substack.com/p/sedona-pulls-the-plug-on-flock-safety|title=Sedona Pulls the Plug on Flock Safety|website=West Valley Families|date=2025-09-10|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2025-09-11/sedona-council-permanently-ends-license-plate-camera-program|title=Sedona council permanently ends license plate camera program|website=KNAU|date=2025-09-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Flagstaff deployed 32 Flock cameras in summer 2024 at a cost of $143,100 annually. By September 2025, a petition signed by 25+ residents demanded cancellation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-09-01/after-sedona-paused-flock-safety-camera-system-flagstaff-is-considering-the-same-issue|title=After Sedona paused Flock Safety camera system, Flagstaff is considering the same issue|website=KJZZ|date=2025-09-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

University of Arizona contracted with Flock in February 2025 for 54 ALPR cameras at $160,000 annually. Students and faculty launched a "Deflock Tucson" campaign citing concerns about tracking international students and potential data sharing with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azluminaria.org/2025/09/15/ua-students-and-faculty-question-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-on-campus/|title=UA students and faculty question use of Flock Safety cameras on campus|website=AZ Luminaria|date=2025-09-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Casa Grande approved a $10 million "Safe City Initiative" in September 2025 including 100 license plate readers. Chief Mark McCrory reported the current 22 license plate readers led to 212 stolen vehicles identified and 168 arrests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.inmaricopa.com/we-mapped-all-flock-cameras/|title=We mapped the city's Flock cameras|website=InMaricopa|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Despite documented deployments across Arizona including Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe, Surprise, Youngtown, Litchfield Park, and Yuma, the state has no ALPR-specific regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azmirror.com/2019/07/08/how-do-automated-license-plate-readers-work/|title=How do automated license plate readers work?|website=Arizona Mirror|date=2019-07-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

==Security vulnerabilities==
In 2025, Flock Safety reported security vulnerabilities in its devices and submitted them to MITRE for inclusion in the National Vulnerability Database, including issues such as hard-coded credentials and improper access controls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-05 |title=Gunshot Detection and License Plate Reader Security Alert |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/gunshot-detection-and-license-plate-reader-security-alert |website=Flock Safety}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=CVE-2025-59403 : The Flock Safety Android Collins application (aka com.flocksafety.android.collin |url=https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2025-59403/ |website=CVEdetails.com}}</ref> Similar security concerns have affected other ALPR systems, including exposure of default passwords and unencrypted data storage.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Quintin |first=Cooper |date=28 Oct 2015 |title=License Plate Readers Exposed! How Public Safety Agencies Responded to Major Vulnerabilities in Vehicle Surveillance Tech |url=https://www.eff.org/ur/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

This represents one of several major security disclosures in the past decade. In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented more than 100 ALPR cameras accessible on the open internet, often without passwords or proper configuration.<ref name=":4" /> A more serious documented breach occurred in 2019, when Perceptics, LLC, a subcontractor for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed approximately 105,000 license plate images and 184,000 traveler facial images.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident During a 2019 Biometric Pilot |url=https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf}}</ref>

In 2025 it has been discovered that the cameras run [[wikipedia:Android_Oreo|Android 8.0 (Oreo)]] an operating system with 90 security vulnerabilities. The cameras also send data unencrypted and are easily tricked by stingrays. The compute boxes have easily accessible USB-c ports leaving the device vulnerable to rubber duckies. When the power button is pressed in a specific order the device emits a Wi-Fi hotspot that can be used to gain adb access.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Benn |first=Jordan |date=2025-11-16 |title=We Hacked Flock Safety Cameras in under 30 Seconds. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY |website=YouTube}}</ref>

==Government accountability and oversight==

===State audit findings===
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a "hot list" when the image was made.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |website=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf |title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data |website=New Jersey State Police |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

A Government Technology analysis found that agencies often fail to audit ALPR systems regularly, leaving them "open to abuse by neglecting to institute sufficient oversight."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/data/alpr-audit-takeaways-what-we-learned-about-policy-gaps |title=ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps |website=Government Technology |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===Cost-benefit analysis===
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report |website=Arizona Department of Transportation |date=1 Jun 2008 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail) |website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice |date=1 May 2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts — a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf |title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ |website=NCRIC |date=2021 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: [https://deflock.me/map ALPR Map | DeFlock]

====Cease and desist to DeFlock.me====
DeFlock.me is a website allowing users to log and view the locations of ALPRs, such as Flock products. On 30 January 2025, Flock sent a cease and desist notice to the owner of DeFlock demanding the name of the website be changed to exclude the company's brand name. The letter also stated that "the Website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks [...]" which Flock alleged "[...] provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Matz |first=Sarah M. |title=2025 01 31 DEFLOCK CD final |url=https://www.eff.org/files/2025/02/26/2025_01_31_deflock_cd_ex-3.pdf |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=30 Jan 2025 |access-date=27 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |format=PDF}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Automatic license plate readers]]
[[Category:Flock Safety]]

Ferrari

2025-09-18T19:37:55Z

Dreadhawk177: /* Deadmau5's Purrari (2014) */

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
|Logo=Ferrari logo.svg}}
Ferrari is a high-end sports car company.

==Incidents==
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===

In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-demanded-deadmau5-to-lose-the-nyan-wrap-85812.html|title=Ferrari Demanded Deadmau5 to Lose the Nyan Wrap}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-18T19:37:12Z

Dreadhawk177: /* Incidents */

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
|Logo=Ferrari logo.svg}}
Ferrari is a high-end sports car company.

==Incidents==
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===

In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-demanded-deadmau5-to-lose-the-nyan-wrap-85812.html}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-18T19:36:46Z

Dreadhawk177:

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
|Logo=Ferrari logo.svg}}
Ferrari is a high-end sports car company.

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===

In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-demanded-deadmau5-to-lose-the-nyan-wrap-85812.html}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-18T19:36:07Z

Dreadhawk177:

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
|Logo=Ferrari logo.svg}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===

In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-demanded-deadmau5-to-lose-the-nyan-wrap-85812.html}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-18T18:45:23Z

Dreadhawk177: /* Deadmau5's Purrari (2014) */

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
|Logo=Ferrari logo.svg}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===
{{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.

==Products==
{{Ph-C-P}}

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-demanded-deadmau5-to-lose-the-nyan-wrap-85812.html
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-16T12:49:13Z

Dreadhawk177: Added Purrari incident with Deadmau5

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1939-09-13
|Industry=Automotive
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.ferrari.com/
|Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars
}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Deadmau5's Purrari (''2014'')===
{{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
In 2014, Canadian electronic music producer Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) drew international attention for customizing his Ferrari 458 Italia with a colorful Nyan Cat–themed vinyl wrap, custom floor mats, and modified Ferrari badging that read “Purrari.” The car, which he prominently used in events such as the Gumball 3000 rally and in his online “Coffee Run” video series, became popularly known by the nickname ''Purrari''. Ferrari, however, objected to the modifications, particularly the parody badging and branding, arguing that they infringed on its trademarks and diluted the brand’s image. Ferrari North America issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the custom elements. Deadmau5 complied, removing the wrap and “Purrari” logos before offering the car for sale. The dispute, widely reported in automotive and music media, highlighted Ferrari’s aggressive defense of its brand identity and its broader history of restricting unauthorized customizations or resales of its vehicles, even when carried out by high-profile owners.

==Products==
{{Ph-C-P}}

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ferrari

2025-09-16T12:45:48Z

Dreadhawk177: Created page with "{{CompanyCargo |Founded=1939-09-13 |Industry=Automotive |Type=Private |Website=https://www.ferrari.com/ |Description=Automotive manufacturer of high-end sports cars }} {{Ph-C-Int}} ==Consumer-impact summary== {{Ph-C-CIS}} ==Incidents== {{Ph-C-Inc}} This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the {{PAGENAME}} category. ===Example incident one ('..."

Talk:Toyota

2025-09-02T02:05:34Z

Dreadhawk177: /* Page splitting, and tone */ Reply

==Page splitting, and tone==

No great hurry/rush, but it's worth pointing out that the warranty stuff, along with any other incidents, should exist in their own incident pages rather than the main Toyota page when the time comes. There are also some issues with tone, I'd recommend reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for tips on how to rework the wording [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Also, there's an ongoing class action for the alleged sale of telemetry to Progressive. Not sure if the wiki is good to take ongoing legal stuff, but here's the link:
:https://www.classaction.org/news/toyota-analytics-co.-illegally-shared-driver-data-with-progressive-insurance-class-action-lawsuit-claims [[User:Dreadhawk177|Dreadhawk177]] ([[User talk:Dreadhawk177|talk]]) 02:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Tesla

2025-06-24T16:00:10Z

Dreadhawk177: Reworded some stuff to make it a little more professional sounding using AI. Double checked rewording for inaccuracies, etc.

{{Incomplete}}

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Tesla
| Type = Public
| Founded = 2003
| Industry = Automotive
| Official Website = https://tesla.com/
| Logo = Tesla.png
}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Tesla, Inc.|Tesla, Inc.]]''' (formerly '''Tesla Motors''') is a company founded by [[Martin Eberhard]] and [[Marc Tarpenning]] in 2003. In 2008, it was funded and taken over by [[Elon Musk]], when both original founders left their positions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schreiber |first=Barbara A. |last2=Gregersen |first2=Erik |last3=Ashburn |first3=Doug |date=21 Mar 2025 |title=Tesla, Inc. |url=https://www.britannica.com/money/Tesla-Motors |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Britannica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Qai group |date=29 Sep 2022 |title=Tesla: A History Of Innovation (and Headaches) |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/09/29/tesla-a-history-of-innovation-and-headaches/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref>

==Controversies==
After the company was bought by Elon Musk it has been involved in a number of controversies such as requiring subscriptions or requiring a Tesla technician to fix 2012's Model S,<ref>{{Cite web |title=2012 Tesla Model s problems |url=https://www.slotcar-today.com/problems/tesla/model-s/2012 |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=SlotCar Today}}</ref> With cases such as the continued denial of adding [[Apple Carplay]] or [[Android Auto]] to their vehicles, putting an expiry date on their cars, and making a $100,000 utility vehicle whose warranty is void by a car wash.

This is a list of all consumer protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:Tesla|Tesla category]].

===[https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/ Privacy Concerns]===
Tesla employees have allegedly viewed and shared embarrassing, disturbing, and potentially explicit recordings of Tesla through internal messaging systems; Tesla claims that all recordings are anonymous regardless of anonymity, it raises some privacy concerns, such as the fact that employees can even access those recordings in the first place, there don't seem to be effective measures in place to prevent those videos from being shared and they use these recordings to train their artificial intelligence which posses other privacy concerns.

=== Artificially disabling functionality ===
Tesla was among the early automakers to implement feature gating through software updates. For example, the company introduced an "acceleration boost" for certain vehicles that increased acceleration performance once the software feature was purchased, despite the necessary hardware already being present in the car.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Agatie |first=Cristian |date=20 Nov 2024 |title=Refreshed Tesla Model 3 Gets Acceleration Boost in Certain Markets, US Still Waiting |url=https://www.autoevolution.com/news/refreshed-tesla-model-3-gets-acceleration-boost-in-certain-markets-us-still-waiting-243025.html |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=autoevolution}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ali |first=Iqtidar |date=22 November 2024 |title=Tesla starts offering Acceleration Boost for the Model 3 Highland Long Range variant |url=https://www.teslaoracle.com/2024/11/22/tesla-starts-offering-acceleration-boost-for-the-model-3-highland-long-range-variant/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Tesla Oracle}}</ref>

Tesla initially promoted the inclusion of radar hardware in its Model 3 vehicles, highlighting its role in enhancing driver assistance features. In subsequent production runs, however, the company discontinued radar hardware in new Model 3 units, while continuing to include it in higher-end models such as the Model S (and later the Model X). Later, Tesla issued an over-the-air (OTA) software update that disabled the radar hardware in existing Model 3 vehicles equipped with it.<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 Jan 2024 |title=Tesla’s Relationship With Radar |url=https://www.edge-ai-vision.com/2024/01/teslas-relationship-with-radar/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Edge AI and Vision Alliance}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Klender |first=Joey |date=10 Jun 2023 |title=Tesla owners claim their radar was disabled during service visits |url=https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-disables-radar-model-3-model-y-service-visits/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Teslarati}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Dnistran |first=Iulian |date=22 Mar 2023 |title=Elon Musk Overruled Tesla Engineers Who Said Removing Radar Would Be Problematic: Report |url=https://insideevs.com/news/658439/elon-musk-overruled-tesla-autopilot-engineers-radar-removal/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=InsideEVs}}</ref> As a result, these vehicles saw changes such as a reduced range of following distance options in Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC), from 1-7 to 2-7. Reports also indicated degraded performance in driver assistance systems, including instances of unexpected braking behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=rwiegand |date=22 Jul 2024 |title=Unfortunate new panic braking behavior from TACC |url=https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/unfortunate-new-panic-braking-behavior-from-tacc.331045/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |via=Tesla Motors Club}}</ref>

Tesla has also phased out other commonly expected vehicle features, such as ultrasonic parking sensors, reportedly as a cost-saving measure.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tesla Vision Update: Replacing Ultrasonic Sensors with Tesla Vision |url=https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Tesla}}</ref> These changes are often implemented without formal announcements. Additionally, Tesla has removed dedicated rain sensors from some vehicles, with similar impacts on feature performance.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Johnson |first=Jeremy |date=8 Dec 2023 |title=Are Softening Tesla Model Y Sales In Europe Really Due to $119 Worth of Sensors Removal? |url=https://www.torquenews.com/14335/are-softening-tesla-model-y-sales-europe-really-due-119-sensor-removal |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Torque News}}</ref>

===Wrongful legal threats===
Tesla once sent a legal threat to a Swedish car repair company called "[[Grufman Bil AB]]" to take down a YouTube video that they had posted that showed them smashing a car component that was supposed to hold up a wheel with a big hammer, showing how that component was made of metal that was a lot weaker than one could reasonably expect. Grufman Bil decided to quickly take down that video and when someone asked them why, Grufman Bil said "because it's not worth getting sued over," which indicates that Tesla was possibly threatening to sue people who show important car defects.


==Resale restrictions==
Tesla has recently started prohibiting the resale of its vehicles within one year of purchase, imposing fines of up to $50,000 on owners who violate the policy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hood |first=Bryan |date=4 June 2024 |title=A Man Says Tesla Won’t Let Him Sell His Cybertruck—Even Though It’s Too Big for His Parking Spot |url=https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/tesla-cybertruck-owner-cannot-sell-ev-parking-space-1235638981/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Robb Report}}</ref> This is done without regard for situations that may necessitate a resale, and appears to align with practices adopted by other companies.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Foote |first=Brett |date=7 Jan 2022 |title=2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Will Come With One Year No-Sale Provision |url=https://fordauthority.com/2022/01/2022-ford-f-150-lightning-will-come-with-one-year-no-sale-provision/ |access-date=22 Mar 2025 |website=Ford Authority}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Tesla]]

Life360

2025-06-24T15:41:23Z

Dreadhawk177: Removed template

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =Private
| Founded =April 17, 2007
| Industry =Social Networking
| Official Website =https://www.life360.com/
| Logo =Life360 Horizontal.png
}}'''Life360 is a''' location-based social networking application developed by Life360, Inc., a San Mateo, California–based technology company. Designed primarily for families, the app enables users to share real-time locations, communicate through group messaging, receive alerts about members’ movements, and access emergency services. Since its launch in 2008, Life360 has evolved into a comprehensive safety and coordination platform with millions of active users worldwide. Its emphasis on private circles and family-focused features distinguishes it from other location-sharing tools, making it a widely used app for digital family life management.
==Consumer-impact summary==
'''User Freedom'''

Life360 has been criticized for enabling overbearing surveillance, particularly of teenagers and young adults. Critics argue that the app can be misused by parents or guardians to exercise excessive control, limiting users’ autonomy and contributing to anxiety or strained relationships. While the company has attempted to address this with features like ''Bubbles'', which allow for temporary location obfuscation, some view these efforts as insufficient or superficial.

'''User Privacy'''

Serious privacy concerns have emerged around Life360’s handling of location data. Investigations revealed that the company previously sold precise user location data to third-party data brokers, raising ethical and legal questions about consent and transparency. Though Life360 claimed the data was anonymized and later announced it would cease this practice, skepticism remains about the extent to which user information is protected.

'''Business Model'''

Life360 operates on a freemium model, offering basic services for free while monetizing premium features and until recently, user data. Critics argue this incentivized data exploitation, as revenue generation relied not only on subscriptions but also on selling behavioral and location-based data. The tension between maximizing profit and protecting user rights has led to public backlash and regulatory scrutiny.

'''Market Control'''

Through its 2021 acquisition of Tile, a major competitor in the tracking device space, Life360 expanded its presence in the location services market. This consolidation raised concerns about reduced competition and increased centralization of user data. With fewer independent alternatives available, users may find it difficult to opt out of the ecosystem without losing access to widely used tracking features, effectively tightening Life360’s control over the market.

===Sale of Data to Arity and Allstate (2016)===
{{Main|https://consumerrights.wiki/Allstate_and_Arity%27s_alleged_unauthorized_driver_data_collection_through_mobile_apps}}
Life360 collected and sold data to Arity, a subsidiary of Allstate, which allegedly broke the Texas Data Privacy and

Security Act in its later use to increase car insurance premiums

==See also==
[[Data brokers]]

==References==
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Life360

2025-06-24T15:40:43Z

Dreadhawk177: Uploaded logo file and updated logo filename

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =Private
| Founded =April 17, 2007
| Industry =Social Networking
| Official Website =https://www.life360.com/
| Logo =Life360 Horizontal.png
}}'''Life360 is a''' location-based social networking application developed by Life360, Inc., a San Mateo, California–based technology company. Designed primarily for families, the app enables users to share real-time locations, communicate through group messaging, receive alerts about members’ movements, and access emergency services. Since its launch in 2008, Life360 has evolved into a comprehensive safety and coordination platform with millions of active users worldwide. Its emphasis on private circles and family-focused features distinguishes it from other location-sharing tools, making it a widely used app for digital family life management.
==Consumer-impact summary==
'''User Freedom'''

Life360 has been criticized for enabling overbearing surveillance, particularly of teenagers and young adults. Critics argue that the app can be misused by parents or guardians to exercise excessive control, limiting users’ autonomy and contributing to anxiety or strained relationships. While the company has attempted to address this with features like ''Bubbles'', which allow for temporary location obfuscation, some view these efforts as insufficient or superficial.

'''User Privacy'''

Serious privacy concerns have emerged around Life360’s handling of location data. Investigations revealed that the company previously sold precise user location data to third-party data brokers, raising ethical and legal questions about consent and transparency. Though Life360 claimed the data was anonymized and later announced it would cease this practice, skepticism remains about the extent to which user information is protected.

'''Business Model'''

Life360 operates on a freemium model, offering basic services for free while monetizing premium features and until recently, user data. Critics argue this incentivized data exploitation, as revenue generation relied not only on subscriptions but also on selling behavioral and location-based data. The tension between maximizing profit and protecting user rights has led to public backlash and regulatory scrutiny.

'''Market Control'''

Through its 2021 acquisition of Tile, a major competitor in the tracking device space, Life360 expanded its presence in the location services market. This consolidation raised concerns about reduced competition and increased centralization of user data. With fewer independent alternatives available, users may find it difficult to opt out of the ecosystem without losing access to widely used tracking features, effectively tightening Life360’s control over the market.

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

===Sale of Data to Arity and Allstate (2016)===
{{Main|https://consumerrights.wiki/Allstate_and_Arity%27s_alleged_unauthorized_driver_data_collection_through_mobile_apps}}
Life360 collected and sold data to Arity, a subsidiary of Allstate, which allegedly broke the Texas Data Privacy and

Security Act in its later use to increase car insurance premiums

==See also==
[[Data brokers]]

==References==
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

File:Life360 logo.png

2025-06-24T15:40:08Z

Dreadhawk177: Life360 Logo

== Summary ==
Life360 Logo

Life360

2025-06-24T15:38:40Z

Dreadhawk177:

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =Private
| Founded =April 17, 2007
| Industry =Social Networking
| Official Website =https://www.life360.com/
| Logo =Life360_Horizontal.svg
}}'''Life360 is a''' location-based social networking application developed by Life360, Inc., a San Mateo, California–based technology company. Designed primarily for families, the app enables users to share real-time locations, communicate through group messaging, receive alerts about members’ movements, and access emergency services. Since its launch in 2008, Life360 has evolved into a comprehensive safety and coordination platform with millions of active users worldwide. Its emphasis on private circles and family-focused features distinguishes it from other location-sharing tools, making it a widely used app for digital family life management.
==Consumer-impact summary==
'''User Freedom'''

Life360 has been criticized for enabling overbearing surveillance, particularly of teenagers and young adults. Critics argue that the app can be misused by parents or guardians to exercise excessive control, limiting users’ autonomy and contributing to anxiety or strained relationships. While the company has attempted to address this with features like ''Bubbles'', which allow for temporary location obfuscation, some view these efforts as insufficient or superficial.

'''User Privacy'''

Serious privacy concerns have emerged around Life360’s handling of location data. Investigations revealed that the company previously sold precise user location data to third-party data brokers, raising ethical and legal questions about consent and transparency. Though Life360 claimed the data was anonymized and later announced it would cease this practice, skepticism remains about the extent to which user information is protected.

'''Business Model'''

Life360 operates on a freemium model, offering basic services for free while monetizing premium features and until recently, user data. Critics argue this incentivized data exploitation, as revenue generation relied not only on subscriptions but also on selling behavioral and location-based data. The tension between maximizing profit and protecting user rights has led to public backlash and regulatory scrutiny.

'''Market Control'''

Through its 2021 acquisition of Tile, a major competitor in the tracking device space, Life360 expanded its presence in the location services market. This consolidation raised concerns about reduced competition and increased centralization of user data. With fewer independent alternatives available, users may find it difficult to opt out of the ecosystem without losing access to widely used tracking features, effectively tightening Life360’s control over the market.

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

===Sale of Data to Arity and Allstate (2016)===
{{Main|https://consumerrights.wiki/Allstate_and_Arity%27s_alleged_unauthorized_driver_data_collection_through_mobile_apps}}
Life360 collected and sold data to Arity, a subsidiary of Allstate, which allegedly broke the Texas Data Privacy and

Security Act in its later use to increase car insurance premiums

==See also==
[[Data brokers]]

==References==
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Life360

2025-06-24T15:33:30Z

Dreadhawk177: Created page with "{{InfoboxCompany | Name = {{PAGENAME}} | Type = | Founded = | Industry = | Official Website = | Logo = }}'''Life360 is a''' location-based social networking application developed by Life360, Inc., a San Mateo, California–based technology company. Designed primarily for families, the app enables users to share real-time locations, communicate through group messaging, receive alerts about members’ movements, and access emergency services. Since its launch in 2008, Life..."

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =
| Founded =
| Industry =
| Official Website =
| Logo =
}}'''Life360 is a''' location-based social networking application developed by Life360, Inc., a San Mateo, California–based technology company. Designed primarily for families, the app enables users to share real-time locations, communicate through group messaging, receive alerts about members’ movements, and access emergency services. Since its launch in 2008, Life360 has evolved into a comprehensive safety and coordination platform with millions of active users worldwide. Its emphasis on private circles and family-focused features distinguishes it from other location-sharing tools, making it a widely used app for digital family life management.{{Placeholder box|An introductory paragraph starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a ...<ref name":0">ref goes here</ref>". When writing the article, insert text in the space below this box, and then delete this tip box (and the other tip boxes below). In the visual editor, just click on a box and press backspace to delete it. In the source editor, simply delete the double curly brackets, and the text inside them.}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
'''User Freedom'''

Life360 has been criticized for enabling overbearing surveillance, particularly of teenagers and young adults. Critics argue that the app can be misused by parents or guardians to exercise excessive control, limiting users’ autonomy and contributing to anxiety or strained relationships. While the company has attempted to address this with features like ''Bubbles'', which allow for temporary location obfuscation, some view these efforts as insufficient or superficial.

'''User Privacy'''

Serious privacy concerns have emerged around Life360’s handling of location data. Investigations revealed that the company previously sold precise user location data to third-party data brokers, raising ethical and legal questions about consent and transparency. Though Life360 claimed the data was anonymized and later announced it would cease this practice, skepticism remains about the extent to which user information is protected.

'''Business Model'''

Life360 operates on a freemium model, offering basic services for free while monetizing premium features and until recently, user data. Critics argue this incentivized data exploitation, as revenue generation relied not only on subscriptions but also on selling behavioral and location-based data. The tension between maximizing profit and protecting user rights has led to public backlash and regulatory scrutiny.

'''Market Control'''

Through its 2021 acquisition of Tile, a major competitor in the tracking device space, Life360 expanded its presence in the location services market. This consolidation raised concerns about reduced competition and increased centralization of user data. With fewer independent alternatives available, users may find it difficult to opt out of the ecosystem without losing access to widely used tracking features, effectively tightening Life360’s control over the market.

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

=== Sale of Data to Arity and Allstate (2016) ===
{{Main|https://consumerrights.wiki/Allstate_and_Arity%27s_alleged_unauthorized_driver_data_collection_through_mobile_apps}}
Life360 collected and sold data to Arity, a subsidiary of Allstate, which allegedly broke the Texas Data Privacy and

Security Act in its later use to increase car insurance premiums

==See also==
{{Placeholder box|https://consumerrights.wiki/Category:Term_Spiking}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Frontier Airlines

2025-06-11T16:46:25Z

Dreadhawk177: Added link to an article on the obfuscation of web based check-in. Feel free to merge that article into this one or whatever.

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Frontier Airlines, Inc.
| Type = Public
| Founded = 1994
| Industry = Airlines
| Official Website = https://flyfrontier.com/
| Logo = Frontier Airlines logo.svg.png
}}

[https://www.flyfrontier.com/ '''Frontier Airlines, Inc.'''] is a major American airline known for it's ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) model. In spite of it's no-frills approach to air travel, Frontier Airlines has faced increasing criticism from consumers, journalists, advocacy groups, and the media for its unfair business practices. In 2023, Frontier Airlines was the most complained-about airline.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Murphy |first=Alex |date=16 May 2025 |title=Airline complaints hit record high, but a new report has tips to avoid travel headaches |url=https://www.kunc.org/news/2025-05-16/airline-complaints-hit-record-high-but-a-new-report-has-tips-to-avoid-travel-headaches |url-status=live |access-date=9 Jun 2025 |work=NPS News, Colorado}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Grubola |first=Heather |date=1 Aug 2024 |title=Pa. woman frustrated with Frontier after getting involuntarily bumped from flight |url=https://6abc.com/post/berks-county-woman-frustrated-frontier-airlines-after-getting-involuntarily-bumped-flight/15133908/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250512212909/https://6abc.com/post/berks-county-woman-frustrated-frontier-airlines-after-getting-involuntarily-bumped-flight/15133908/ |archive-date=12 May 2025 |access-date=9 Jun 2025 |work=6abc Action News}}</ref> Since 2022, Frontier Airlines received almost 6,500 BBB complaints, many of which consisted of specific issues like "customer service," "repair."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Frontier Airlines, Inc. |url=https://www.bbb.org/us/co/denver/profile/airlines/frontier-airlines-inc-1296-55000095/complaints |url-status=live |access-date=9 Jun 2025 |website=Better Business Bureau}}</ref> Frontier Airlines customers have heavily-critisized the airline because of it's history of prioritizing profits over passengers due to the airline's deceptive and exploitive business practices.

==Consumer-impact summary==
Over the years, Frontier Airlines has earned itself a budget-focused reputation because of its controversial business practices and business operations. The most well-known of these issues are:

*Denying boarding for customers due to the voluntary overbooking of flights
*Not compensating passengers or providing worthless forms of compensation to passengers for operational shortfalls (e.g., lost/mishandled luggage, canceled flights)
*Engaging in bait‑and‑switch tactics by charging passengers for "extra" services during checkout
*Charging customers for medical supplies
*Charging customers for speaking to a human
*Charging customers inconsistent fees without transparent price posting
*Charging customers succeeding fees in addition to the already-paid fee after the initial sale
*Temporarily removed its phone support in 2022, but reintroduced it in 2024 because of high customer demand
*Collect personal data on passengers before setting the price as part of their "dynamic pricing" approach
*Forcing customers to waive their right to sue or join class actions if they enroll in their fly pass program
*Sells passengers' personal information to third parties without providing passengers a way to opt-out
*Obfuscating and charging for [[Frontier Airlines Obfuscates Web Check-in Form|web-based check-in]]

==Incidents==

===Deliberate selling more seats on flights than available, then denying boarding for passengers===
Compared to other airlines, including other airlines with a ULCC model, Frontier Airlines has the highest involuntary denied-boarding rate among carriers in the United States. <ref>{{Cite news |last=Turner |first=Matt |date=August 22, 2024 |title=The Airlines That Deny the Most Passengers |url=https://www.travelagentcentral.com/transportation/airlines-deny-most-passengers |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250324104445/https://www.travelagentcentral.com/transportation/airlines-deny-most-passengers |archive-date=March 24, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |work=Travel Agent Central}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Miller |first=Alex |date=September 23, 2024 |title=The Airlines Most Likely To Bump You [2024 Data + Survey] |url=https://upgradedpoints.com/news/airlines-most-likely-to-bump-you-2024/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250413204317/https://upgradedpoints.com/news/airlines-most-likely-to-bump-you-2024/ |archive-date=April 13, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |work=Upgraded Points}}</ref> In 2023 to 2024, Frontier had 3.21 involuntary bumps, the highest recorded number of involuntary bumps from 2023 to 2024. As a comparison, American Airlines follows this number with a rate of 0.6, a rate 400% lower than Frontier Airlines. At about 3.21 involuntary bumps per 10,000 passengers, this means that a paying Frontier Airlines passenger is about eight times more likely to be denied boarding than an American Airlines passenger because of Frontier Airlines' practice of deliberately overbooking flights.

The following is an account from Frontier Airlines passenger, Erin Woltjen, who was denied boarding while attempting to board her flight from Philadelphia to Atlanta:<blockquote>"''"I scanned my boarding pass from my phone and it didn't work. He looks at the computer and he says to us, 'I'm sorry, the plane's been overbooked.' And he goes on to explain that none of us are getting on the plane at this time."''</blockquote>The passenger was ultimately given a refund after speaking with a Frontier Airlines spokesperson.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Klisauskaite |first=Vyte |date=August 3, 2024 |title="You Were Not There": Frontier Airlines Tells Passenger They Were A No Show After Overbooking Flight |url=https://simpleflying.com/frontier-airlines-passenger-no-show/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250409000628/https://simpleflying.com/frontier-airlines-passenger-no-show/ |archive-date=April 9, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |work=Simple Flying}}</ref> Many other passengers share Miss. Woltjen's experience of being denied boarding due to Frontier Airlines' budget-focused practice of overbooking flights.

===Failing to compensate passengers for cancelations and delays===
Frontier Airlines has a large history of refund complaints by customers. In 2022, Frontier Airlines accounted for 13% of all refund-related complaints filed with the Department of Transportation (DOT), and only 2.9% of all boarded U.S. airline-boarded passengers were Frontier Airlines passengers. This indicates an extremely high complaint rate.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Murray |first=Teresa |date=April 24, 2023 |title=REPORT: Frontier, Spirit, JetBlue have worst complaint ratios |url=https://pirg.org/media-center/report-frontier-spirit-and-jetblue-have-worst-complaint-ratios/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114061400/https://pirg.org/media-center/report-frontier-spirit-and-jetblue-have-worst-complaint-ratios/ |archive-date=January 14, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |work=PIRG}}</ref> Additionally, the airline was fined $2.2 million by the DOT, only 0.066% of the company's revenue in 2022. This equates to a person making $100,000 per year being fined $66.

There are numerous examples of Frontier Airlines providing worthless or inadequate compensation to customers, especially in the form of vouchers. Aviation outlet, ''Simple Flying'' has warned consumers about Frontier’s unfair and “highly restrictive” compensation practices, advising passengers to decline vouchers and request cash refunds when they are legally entitled to them. In 2024, Frontier Airlines issued travel vouchers in an attempt to compensate bumped passengers. The vouchers were often only valid for 90 days, and excluded taxes, fees, the cost of seat selection, and the cost of baggage, rendering these forms of compensation effectively "worthless" in many circumstances.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Roberts |first=Michal |date=May 10, 2025 |title=Why Airlines Sometimes Offer Money To Switch Flights |url=https://simpleflying.com/airlines-offer-money-switch-flights/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250511140110/https://simpleflying.com/airlines-offer-money-switch-flights/ |archive-date=May 11, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |work=Simple Flying}}</ref>

The DOT has implemented a new rule that airlines must follow that mandates airlines to:

#Automatically rebook passengers on the next available flight for free in the event of a cancelation due to a controllable circumstance or provide a refund to the original payment if the passengers chooses not to accept the new travel plans.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 5, 2024 |title=DOT Launches Rulemaking to Protect Passengers Stranded by Airline Disruptions |url=https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot-launches-rulemaking-protect-passengers-stranded-airline-disruptions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250422010803/https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot-launches-rulemaking-protect-passengers-stranded-airline-disruptions |archive-date=April 22, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |website=U.S. Department of Transportation}}</ref>
#Issue a voucher or flight credit that is transferrable and valid for 5 years if the passengers opts for one.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2024 |title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Rule Requiring Automatic Refunds of Airline Tickets and Ancillary Service Fees |url=https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250607025328/https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline |archive-date=June 7, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |website=U.S. Department of Transportation}}</ref>

In 2024, ''Mighty Travels'' ''Premium'' reported a YTD flight cancelation rate of 1.7%. Frontier ranked among the highest of airlines with a cancelation rate in August and October with a rate of 3.3% and 3.1% respectively according to DOT Air Travel Consumer Reports.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 21, 2024 |title=Frontier Airlines Introduces New Rebooking Process for Canceled Flights |url=https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/07/frontier-airlines-introduces-new-rebooking-process-for-canceled-flights/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250126121213/https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/07/frontier-airlines-introduces-new-rebooking-process-for-canceled-flights/ |archive-date=January 26, 2025 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |website=Mighty Travels Premium}}</ref> Though not explicitly stated, the recent implementation of these DOT rules allude to the obvious shortcomings of Frontier's current rebooking practices.

===Bait-and-switch practices===
It is common for ULCC airlines to advertise low fares, and then add strict fees after the fact, making the posted fare difficult to purchase as is. Frontier Airlines is exceptionally notorious for this. In 2023, Frontier constantly advertised low base fares for flights, but pressed fees for additional services. After declaring baggage and choosing seats, passengers may ultimately pay a total price about three to five times higher than the advertised base fare.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Barbara |date=May 29, 2019 |title=How to Avoid Airline Fees |url=https://www.consumerreports.org/airline-fees/how-to-avoid-airline-fees/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811053634/https://www.consumerreports.org/airline-fees/how-to-avoid-airline-fees/ |archive-date=August 11, 2022 |access-date=June 9, 2025 |website=Consumer Reports}}</ref>

===Charging customers for speaking with a human agent & ending phone support===
Frontier Airlines has a history of charging passengers a $20 to $25 "Airport Assistance Fee" for communicating with their in-person support staff.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lincoln |first=Ashli |date=December 4, 2024 |title=More passengers say Frontier Airlines employees extorted them |url=https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/more-passengers-say-frontier-airlines-employees-extorted-them/GWO7GZU4ENHV3P7PEYM7567P4A/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250124122218/https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/more-passengers-say-frontier-airlines-employees-extorted-them/GWO7GZU4ENHV3P7PEYM7567P4A/ |archive-date=January 24, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |work=WSB-TV Atlanta}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Winter |first=Emily |date=April 11, 2023 |title=Yes, an airline can charge you a fee for help at the airport |url=https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/travel-verify/airline-charge-fee-help-assistance-bags-boarding-pass-at-airport-frontier-spirit/536-9b0e1578-d626-482c-b805-fac1902ebc24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231002235820/https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/travel-verify/airline-charge-fee-help-assistance-bags-boarding-pass-at-airport-frontier-spirit/536-9b0e1578-d626-482c-b805-fac1902ebc24 |archive-date=October 2, 2023 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=VerifyThis}}</ref>

There is also a history of charging $35 fee for talking to customer service agents over the phone.<ref>{{Cite web |last=A. |first=Ayah |date=July 21, 2022 |title=Airlines Charging As Much As $35 To Speak To A Phone Rep |url=https://travelnoire.com/airlines-charging-as-much-as-35-to-speak-to-a-phone-rep |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211131942/https://travelnoire.com/airlines-charging-as-much-as-35-to-speak-to-a-phone-rep |archive-date=February 11, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=Travel Noire}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Towey |first=Hannah |date=July 19, 2022 |title=Customers unable to navigate this summer's flight chaos online are getting stuck paying $25 fees to buy or change their tickets over the phone |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/flight-delays-cancelations-25-phone-fees-jetblue-united-customer-service-2022-7 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240717220503/https://www.businessinsider.com/flight-delays-cancelations-25-phone-fees-jetblue-united-customer-service-2022-7 |archive-date=July 17, 2024 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=Business Insider}}</ref>

As of June 2025, passengers are still charged a $25 "non-refundable" fee for speaking with Frontier airport agents.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 10, 2025 |title=Optional Services |url=https://www.flyfrontier.com/optional-services?mobile=true |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250515220732/https://www.flyfrontier.com/optional-services/?mobile=true |archive-date=May 15, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=Frontier}}</ref> They may qualify for an exemption though.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 10, 2025 |title=Airport Agent Assistance |url=https://www.flyfrontier.com/travel/travel-info/airport-agent-assistance/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250503201933/https://www.flyfrontier.com/travel/travel-info/Airport-Agent-Assistance |archive-date=May 3, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=Frontier}}</ref>

In 2022, Frontier shut down its customer service phone hotline, leaving customers only the option to seek support via live chat.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Britt |first=Phil |date=January 23, 2023 |title=Frontier Airlines Hangs up Customer Phone Support. What's the CX Message? |url=https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/frontier-airlines-hangs-up-customer-phone-support-whats-the-cx-message/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250412183716/https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/frontier-airlines-hangs-up-customer-phone-support-whats-the-cx-message/ |archive-date=April 12, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |website=CMS Wire}}</ref> This has since been reversed in 2024.

===Unfair treatment of passengers with disabilities and medical conditions===
Multiple passengers have expressed their disappointment with Frontier for their egregious treatment of passengers with medical needs. Perhaps one of the most notable of these instances was when a Frontier agent forced a paralyzed passenger to pay in cash to check a medical-supply despite a confirmation from TSA that it contained no prohibited items.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Leff |first=Gary |date=May 30, 2025 |title=“Yes, I’m Discriminating”—Frontier Agent Caught Illegally Charging Wheelchair Passenger For Medical Bag |url=https://viewfromthewing.com/yes-im-discriminating-frontier-agent-caught-illegally-charging-wheelchair-passenger-for-medical-bag/ |url-status=live |website=View from the Wing}}</ref>

On more than one occasion, Frontier has mishandled mobility aids.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Boey |first=Valerie |date=July 28, 2023 |title=Frontier Airlines returns missing wheelchair to paralyzed Florida man who went without it for 3 days |url=https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/another-person-says-frontier-airlines-lost-their-wheelchair |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241107012825/https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/another-person-says-frontier-airlines-lost-their-wheelchair |archive-date=November 7, 2024 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |work=Fox 35 Orlando}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wakeman |first=Lauren |date=November 14, 2023 |title=Lawsuit filed against Frontier Airlines for losing, damaging disabled woman’s custom wheelchair |url=https://www.salvilaw.com/press-release/lawsuit-filed-against-frontier-airlines-for-losing-damaging-disabled-womans-custom-wheelchair/ |url-status=live |website=Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C.}}</ref>

===Incentivizing gate agents to squeeze passengers on bag fees===
It is a common practice for ULCC airlines staff to audit passengers' bag dimensions while they queue for boarding at airport gates. However, Frontier Airlines is arguably a great deal more predatory in this practice. In a 2024 U.S. Senate Committee Meeting where several major airline executives were present, Senator Josh Hawley raised a question about whether the airlines paid a "bounty" to their employees for catching passengers with bags that were too big at airport gates. Bobby Schroeter, who is the officer in charge of Frontier Airlines' commercial operations, states: "We charge them an incentive... we recognize this [gate-side baggage auditing] is a hard job and therefore, we incentivize them to do that... '''$10 per bag."'''<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=December 4, 2024 |title=Sen. Josh Hawley to Airline Executives: "Flying on your airlines is horrible." |url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5144527/sen-josh-hawley-airline-executives-flying-airlines-horrible |url-status=live |website=C-Span}}</ref> According to a Frontier Airlines spokesperson, the commision-based bonus is "simply an incentive for our airport customer service agents to help ensure compliance with our policies and that all customers are treated equally.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=Whitehead |first=Joanna |date=March 13, 2023 |title=Frontier Airlines admits it pays agents a bonus for charging passengers for oversized baggage |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/frontier-airlines-baggage-policy-airport-b2299842.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250116201224/https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/frontier-airlines-baggage-policy-airport-b2299842.html |archive-date=January 16, 2025 |access-date=June 10, 2025 |work=The Independent}}</ref> Many customers argue that the incentives create financial motivation to not treat passengers "equally," but rather to be overly critical, and even aggressive in some circumstances over enforcing bag size limits.

Frontier Airlines and Spirit Airlines cumulatively spent $26 million between 2022 and 2023 paying gate agents incentives to catch passengers with bags that did not fit in the airlines' gate-side sizers.<ref name=":0" />

Frontier Airlines tends to be more predatory in bag auditing at airport gates because they target passengers at the moment before boarding. Not only are passengers caught off guard at this moment, the fees they pay at this time are a great deal higher, sometimes $99 compared to a lower fees when paid earlier.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 17, 2025 |title=Frontier Airlines Begins Charging for Carry on Bags |url=https://www.cheapair.com/blog/frontier-airlines-begins-charging-for-carry-on-bags/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250425230421/https://www.cheapair.com/blog/frontier-airlines-begins-charging-for-carry-on-bags/ |archive-date=April 25, 2025 |website=CheapAir}}</ref> In addition, a class-action lawsuit alleges that Frontier gate agents utilized the gate-side bag-sizers smaller than the posted size to mislead passengers into paying fees for bags that were actually within size limits.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pradelli |first=Chad |date=November 21, 2023 |title=Lawsuit accuses Frontier Airlines of bogus baggage fees {{!}} Investigation |url=https://6abc.com/frontier-airlines-bag-policy-class-action-lawsuit-flight-fees/14085587/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250326031459/https://6abc.com/frontier-airlines-bag-policy-class-action-lawsuit-flight-fees/14085587/ |archive-date=March 26, 2025 |access-date=Junie 10, 2025 |work=6abc Action News}}</ref> To further push Frontier's budget-focused business model, the bag fee incentives, coupled with their bait-and-switch practice of cheap tickets, and multiple fees, appears to be an overarching strategy to exploit their customers as much as possible so that the airline can make as much money as possible.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Frontier Airlines]]

Stellantis in-car advertisements

2025-02-12T03:15:42Z

Dreadhawk177: Added a wiki-style AI summary (trimmed and modified) of the article.

{{StubNotice}}

On February 7th, 2024 , TechStory.in [https://techstory.in/stellantis-introduces-pop-up-ads-in-vehicles-sparking-outrage-among-owners/ reported] that Jeep 4xe owners are now seeing full screen pop-up advertisements on the displays of their vehicle's infotainment systems.

== Background ==
The controversy surrounding Stellantis' infotainment advertisements is part of a larger trend in the automotive industry, where manufacturers have been experimenting with subscription-based features and monetization of vehicle services. In recent years, BMW introduced charges for heated seats, while Mercedes placed performance enhancements behind paywalls. Now, Stellantis' decision to integrate advertisements into vehicle interfaces has reignited debates over consumer rights and ownership expectations.

==Incident==
Stellantis, the multinational automotive manufacturer and parent company of Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, and Ram, has come under scrutiny following the introduction of full-screen pop-up advertisements on its in-vehicle infotainment systems. This feature, which has been met with widespread criticism, disrupts driver experience by displaying ads whenever the vehicle comes to a stop.

Reports indicate that Jeep owners, in particular, have been subjected to advertisements for Mopar’s extended warranty services. These ads require manual dismissal before users can resume normal system operation, such as checking GPS navigation or adjusting media settings.

=== Stellantis' response ===

Stellantis, through its "JeepCares" representative, acknowledged the implementation of these ads, citing an agreement with SiriusXM. The company suggested that users simply dismiss the ads by tapping the provided close button. However, concerns remain regarding the forced nature of these interruptions and their frequency.

==References==
https://techstory.in/stellantis-introduces-pop-up-ads-in-vehicles-sparking-outrage-among-owners/
{{Placeholder box|[[mw:Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_categories|Add a category]] with the same name as the product, service, website, software, product line or company that this article is about.

The "Incidents" category is not needed.}}

File:ToyotaDataTransmission.png

2025-01-29T15:43:33Z

Dreadhawk177:

==Summary==
So this is mostly anecdotal and I don't have solid evidence for an incident page, but I got a new 2022 Prius Prime a couple years ago and there's a small red sticker stating:

"VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON Your vehicle wirelessly transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to deliver your services and for internal research and data analysis. See www.toyota.com/privacyvts. To disable, press vehicle's SOS button. TO BE REMOVED BY OWNER ONLY"

Naturally, I hit the SOS button to disable any telemetry. I'd consistently get someone on the (car)phone who would essentially confirm I wasn't in an emergency, couldn't help with disabling (seemed unaware of the sticker), and when asked about off data collection, they'd forward the call to support for an android/iphone connectivity app, something I didn't have (you had to pay monthly for it).

I probably called the SOS button 5-10 times over the next 6 months (often nothing better to do on long drives), with similar results. At one point someone said to reach out to the dealer. Lol. So next free service I had, I asked about it, and they referred to me corporate. I gave up after that, but obviously turning off telemetry wasn't as simple as hitting the SOS button and asking..

File:ToyotaDataTransmission.png

2025-01-29T15:41:48Z

Dreadhawk177: So this is mostly anecdotal and I don't have solid evidence for an incident page, but I got a new 2022 Prius Prime a couple years ago and there's a small red sticker stating: "VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON Your vehicle wirelessly transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to deliver your services and for internal research and data analysis. See www.toyota.com/privacyvts. To disable, press vehicle's SOS button. TO BE REMOVED BY OWNER ONLY" Naturally, I hit the SOS button to disabl...

== Summary ==
So this is mostly anecdotal and I don't have solid evidence for an incident page, but I got a new 2022 Prius Prime a couple years ago and there's a small red sticker stating:

"VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON Your vehicle wirelessly transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to deliver your services and for internal research and data analysis. See www.toyota.com/privacyvts. To disable, press vehicle's SOS button. TO BE REMOVED BY OWNER ONLY"

Naturally, I hit the SOS button to disable any telemetry. I'd consistently get someone on the (car)phone who would essentially confirm I wasn't in an emergency, and when asked about the sticker and turning off data collection, they'd forward the call to support for a car app, something I didn't have (you had to pay monthly for it).

I probably called the SOS button 5-10 times over the next 6 months (often nothing better to do on long drives), with similar results. At one point someone said to reach out to the dealer. Lol. So next free service I had, I asked about it, and they referred to me corporate. I gave up after that, but obviously turning off telemetry wasn't as simple as hitting the SOS button and asking..

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-28T03:17:30Z

Dreadhawk177: Moved image order

{{StubNotice}}
In 2024, Frontier Airlines changed the flight check-in form of their website from the front page to encourage their users to check-in via app. The check-in was still available through extra steps by going to the "Customer Service" link at the bottom of the webpage or to the FAQs on "Help checking in" before clicking "Other ways to check in" to expand the hidden form. Additionally, there is an added fee of "up to $5 per passenger, per direction" for checking in via the webpage, as stated under the "Optional Services" [https://www.flyfrontier.com/optional-services/ page].

Before:
[[File:FrontierBefore.png|alt=November 27th, 2023: The check-in form is easily accessible from the front page.|thumb|November 27th, 2023: The check-in form is easily accessible from the front page.]]

http://web.archive.org/web/20231127123111/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

After:
[[File:FrontierNew.png|alt=August 8th, 2024: The check-in form now directs the user to use the app in order to check into a flight. |thumb|August 8th, 2024: The check-in form now directs the user to use the app in order to check into a flight.]]
[[File:WebCheckInFeeFrontier.png|alt=Web Check In: Up to $5 per passenger, per direction (Non-Refundable) A fee will apply to customers who check in on the website. Passengers may check in using our mobile app to avoid this fee and save time and money. Download our mobile app today and manage your booking, purchase bags and seats, and check your flight status |thumb|Screenshot of Frontier optional services describing web check-in fee]]
http://web.archive.org/web/20240801024737/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-28T03:16:39Z

Dreadhawk177: Added web check-in fee

{{StubNotice}}
[[File:WebCheckInFeeFrontier.png|alt=Web Check In: Up to $5 per passenger, per direction (Non-Refundable) A fee will apply to customers who check in on the website. Passengers may check in using our mobile app to avoid this fee and save time and money. Download our mobile app today and manage your booking, purchase bags and seats, and check your flight status |thumb|Screenshot of Frontier optional services describing web check-in fee]]
In 2024, Frontier Airlines changed the flight check-in form of their website from the front page to encourage their users to check-in via app. The check-in was still available through extra steps by going to the "Customer Service" link at the bottom of the webpage or to the FAQs on "Help checking in" before clicking "Other ways to check in" to expand the hidden form. Additionally, there is an added fee of "up to $5 per passenger, per direction" for checking in via the webpage, as stated under the "Optional Services" [https://www.flyfrontier.com/optional-services/ page].

Before:
[[File:FrontierBefore.png|alt=November 27th, 2023: The check-in form is easily accessible from the front page.|thumb|November 27th, 2023: The check-in form is easily accessible from the front page.]]

http://web.archive.org/web/20231127123111/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

After:
[[File:FrontierNew.png|alt=August 8th, 2024: The check-in form now directs the user to use the app in order to check into a flight. |thumb|August 8th, 2024: The check-in form now directs the user to use the app in order to check into a flight.]]
http://web.archive.org/web/20240801024737/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

File:WebCheckInFeeFrontier.png

2025-01-28T03:15:36Z

Dreadhawk177:

https://www.flyfrontier.com/optional-services/

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-28T03:08:30Z

Dreadhawk177: Added before/after images

File:FrontierNew.png

2025-01-28T03:07:52Z

Dreadhawk177:

August 8th, 2024: The check-in form now directs the user to use the app in order to check into a flight.

File:FrontierBefore.png

2025-01-28T03:05:57Z

Dreadhawk177:

The check-in form is easily accessible from the front page.

User:Dreadhawk177

2025-01-28T03:04:36Z

Dreadhawk177: Stupidity disclaimer

I've never edited wikis before, so I'm going to definitely do a crummy job of it.

File:ChargingContacts.png

2025-01-28T03:01:33Z

Dreadhawk177:

Charging contacts of the battery operated vacuum. Note the lack of water-resistance and vicinity to where water contact is common.

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-26T23:48:34Z

Dreadhawk177: Dreadhawk177 moved page Frontier Airlines Obfuscates Web Checkin Form to Frontier Airlines Obfuscates Web Check-in Form: Misspelled title

In 2024, Frontier Airlines changed the flight check-in form of their website from the front page to encourage their users to check-in via app. The check-in was still available through extra steps by going to the "Customer Service" link at the bottom of the webpage or to the FAQs on "Help checking in" before clicking "Other ways to check in" to expand the hidden form.

Before:

http://web.archive.org/web/20231127123111/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

After:

http://web.archive.org/web/20240801024737/https://www.flyfrontier.com/

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-26T23:47:06Z

Dreadhawk177: Added sources for Before/After. I'd attach screenshots, but my account is too young for file uploads.

Frontier Airlines obfuscates web check-in form

2025-01-26T23:44:08Z

Dreadhawk177: Creating Frontier Airlines Obfuscates Web Check-in Form