Flock Is Losing Dozens of Contracts as Controversy Grows
The outrage is surging. The post Flock Is Losing Dozens of Contracts as Controversy Grows appeared first on Futurism .
Flock, a provider of mass surveillance technology, is facing a growing backlash from US citizens and municipal leaders alike. At least 54 cities have canceled, non-renewed, or rejected Flock's automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems since the beginning of the year, according to data from the Washington Examiner. This surge in rejection follows similar actions taken by approximately 30 cities from 2025, signaling a widespread public discontent with the technology.
In total, municipal leaders in 23 states across the nation have terminated Flock contracts, with California and Wisconsin leading the charge, each having seven such rejections. Other notable cities rejecting Flock's technology include New York, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia, each with four rejections, while Virginia follows with three.
Despite Flock's cameras being present in over 5,000 US cities as of July 2026, the backlash against the technology is becoming increasingly vocal, particularly concerning privacy and civil rights concerns. In some instances, citizens have taken matters into their own hands by damaging, obscuring, or stealing the cameras to prevent them from recording footage.
The mounting rejection of Flock's technology highlights the growing skepticism and resistance among the American populace towards the surveillance system. One of the most significant contract cancellations occurred when the Los Angeles Police Department decided to non-renew its longstanding agreement with Flock. This decision was prompted by an internal audit revealing that Flock's ALPRs generated 161 false stolen-vehicle alerts in just two months, leading to a false-positive rate of 32.3 percent.
As the outrage continues to escalate, it is likely that the 54 cities that have already rejected Flock's contracts are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Written by urgent.news from Futurism's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — it may contain errors, so check the original before relying on it.
