Texas says Flock surveillance violated state law over licensing issue

Flock Safety, a company that sells thousands of license plate-reading cameras to police department and homeowners associations across Texas, violated state law by operating without a license, according to investigators with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The state fined Flock $500 – the state penalty for first-time offenders – as Harris County leaders have mulled adding $2 million to their budget for the county’s contract with the company.

MORE FROM HOUSTON CHRONICLE: Houston police use a powerful surveillance tool to track vehicles. But they’re not explaining why

While the fine is a drop in the bucket for the company’s budget, experts said the fact that a company leading a fast-growing surveillance network is so quick to flout state regulations and licensing is worth monitoring.

“This gives me big Uber vibes,” said Hannah Bloch-Wehba, a professor of law at Texas A&M who has followed Flock’s growth. “You’ve got a company that goes into a new jurisdiction and acts like it’s not subject to the law in the jurisdiction because it’s doing something slightly different than what the law is meant to cover, they’re expanding really quickly and trying to get market share.”

A 2015 Chronicle report found Uber paid 23 lobbyists up to $700,000 upon its entry into the Texas market to secure favorable treatment in the Legislature. The report came as the company was fighting lawsuits and cease-and-desist orders, piling up fines and exasperating officials, according to the report.

Officials with Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the DPS investigation. 

But the state’s determination comes as law enforcement agencies across the region are using the new camera technology more and more to help solve cases.

“There’s no question it’s a useful tool,” said Jason Spencer, spokesperson for Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez. “We’ve captured violent felony suspects using Flock cameras. And it’s especially useful in recovering stolen vehicles.”

As law enforcement agencies across Harris County enter agreements to install cameras across the region, some experts, including Bloch-Wehba, have expressed concern about the risks that might come with turning so much data about the movements of residents over to a private company.

“Doesn’t it seem odd that the biggest cities in the state of Texas… These cities are paying millions of dollars to a company that won’t even comply with the bare minimum licensing requirements imposed by the state of Texas,” she said, adding that Flock’s stated goal is to build the most encyclopedic surveillance network in the nation’s history.

The Chronicle reported in December that state investigators were looking into Flock’s practices over claims the company operated at various times without required licenses.

DPS, which issues private security licenses, had begun scrutinizing the company in August. At the time, the license was set to expire in October. Before then, however, DPS suspended the license because Flock didn’t maintain proof of required liability insurance.

State officials lifted the suspension on Nov. 12 after processing the company’s liability insurance. By then, however, the private security license had expired. DPS did not issue a new license until Dec. 4, when it granted Flock a license valid through Sept. 30, 2026, officials said.

MORE FROM MATT DEGROOD: 3 Houston leaders back new proposal that would limit ICE holdovers by police

The state’s decision to fine the company for violating the law is the latest in a history of licensing issues for Flock. From 2019 to 2024, it operated without a required private license, a lapse that led the state to issue a cease-and-desist letter in 2024.

A spokesperson for Flock Safety in December called the issue an “administrative error” that wouldn’t affect operations moving forward.

Jonathan Zendeh Del, a criminal defense attorney in Galveston County and a professor of criminal procedure at South Texas College of Law, said there’s little doubt Flock provides a useful technology for law enforcement agencies.

But the state’s recent determination on Flock is a good example of why local entities should only enter agreements with such companies after planning how to ensure they’re accountable, Zendeh Del said.

“The question is whether the government is making sure the company follows the law and whether there are real safeguards in place on privacy, data use and oversight,” he said.

While many Houston-area law enforcement agencies have leaned into the promise of Flock cameras, some police departments elsewhere in the state have moved away from them over privacy concerns.

San Marcos, for instance, recently cut ties with the company over concerns about the scope of its data storage, according to a KXAN report.