Law360 (July 21, 2026, 10:07 PM EDT) -- A California state appeals court has refused to revive a proposed class action that accused a vehicle location data company of unlawfully collecting drivers' data through automatic license plate readers, saying in a published opinion that the suit's plaintiff couldn't lean on his "subjective belief" that his privacy was invaded.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Appellate District ruled Monday that under the plain text of California's Automated License Plate Recognition Systems statute, standing to sue under the statute requires "actual harm."

But plaintiff Guillermo Mata "makes no attempt to show that he has been harmed" by any of Digital Recognition Network Inc.'s alleged violations, the panel said.

Writing for the panel, Justice Truc T. Do acknowledged privacy concerns that come with the ability for technology to capture license plates numerous times a day via different types of cameras.

"The fear is understandable," Justice Do said.

But Mata's "subjective belief of harm" is "not a cognizable harm for standing under the ALPR statute," she said.

"While he contends that there is a factual dispute about whether DRN's usage and privacy policy is adequate, whether that policy is sufficiently conspicuous on DRN's website, and whether DRN's security procedures and practices are sufficient, Mata has not identified how he has been directly harmed by those alleged violations," Justice Do said.

Enacted in 2015, California's ALPR statute regulates public agencies and private entities in their operation and use of an ALPR system, defined as a "searchable computerized database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data."

Among the statute's requirements are for operators of such systems to implement a usage and privacy policy to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance and dissemination of information is "consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties." The policy must also be available in writing and be "posted conspicuously" on any of the operator's websites.

Mata sued in 2021, claiming that while DRN maintains a written privacy and usage policy on its website, the vehicle location data and analytics company was only trying to "maintain the appearance of adhering" to the statute and to "pay lip service to privacy laws without having any intention of actually complying with them."

He sought to represent a class of all persons in California whose license plate data was collected by DRN using an automatic license plate reader.

Mata filed his appeal to the Fourth Appellate District after a trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DRN. The trial court had agreed that Mata lacked standing to sue.

In affirming the trial court's judgment, the Fourth Appellate District on Monday said that the statutory text — California Civil Code Section 1798.90.5 — confirms that "actual harm" is needed for standing.

Justice Do said the statute "differentiates between the concept of harm, on the one hand, and the concept of a statutory violation, on the other."

The statute, she said, specifically states that an individual may sue if "harmed by a violation."

The use of the proposition "by" further shows that the harm must arise from the violation, Justice Do said.

Turning to the dictionary definition of "harm," Justice Do agreed with Mata that California's Legislature did not intend for only monetary damages to establish harm and that the inclusion of statutory damages suggests an intention to allow plaintiffs to recover for "difficult to quantify" harms.

"But it does not follow, as Mata contends, that it signals the Legislature's intention to authorize an individual to bring suit based on the type of amorphous harm he has articulated," Justice Do wrote.

Giving "effect 'to every word' in section 1798.90.54(a), we conclude standing under the ALPR statute requires that a plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm that arises from the violation," Justice Do said.

Counsel for Mata and DRN did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday.

Justices Truc T. Do, David M. Rubin and Judith McConnell sat on the Fourth Appellate District panel.

Mata is represented by Aaron Lawson of Edelson PC.

DRN is represented by Nancy L. Stagg, Xiao Jing Diego Wu Min, Cole B. Ramey, Timothy E. Taylor and John D. Robinson of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.

The case is Guillermo Mata v. Digital Recognition Network Inc., case number D084781, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.