Case Name

Polanco v. Walmart Inc.

Case No.

26-cv-1382

Jurisdiction

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Filed On

July 22, 2026

Class Definition

All California citizens whose automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information was collected, used, or maintained by Walmart’s ALPR system at or near Walmart locations in California within the applicable limitations period.

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff Daniel Polanco filed a putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that Walmart Inc. unlawfully collected, used, maintained, and shared automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information from consumers at certain Walmart locations in California without implementing and conspicuously posting a usage and privacy policy that complies with California’s ALPR Law. The lawsuit alleges that Walmart deployed ALPR systems in store parking lots and access areas to capture and store drivers’ license plate information, together with time and location data, thereby enabling monitoring of consumers’ movements and visit patterns.

The complaint further claims that Walmart’s existing ALPR privacy notice is incomplete under California Civil Code requirements, that consumers were deprived of legally mandated transparency and control over their data, and that Walmart’s conduct also violates the California Constitution’s right to privacy and the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring Walmart to cease collecting or using California ALPR information unless and until it adopts and publicly posts a compliant policy with appropriate safeguards.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Walmart installed and operated ALPR systems at or near the parking lots, entrances, exits, and access roads of certain Walmart stores in California. These systems allegedly photographed vehicles’ license plates, converted the images into computer‑readable data, and stored the resulting records along with time and location information. According to the lawsuit, this allowed Walmart to track where and when consumers visited its stores, monitor their visit patterns, and infer details about their daily routines and associations based on their vehicle movements.

The complaint describes ALPR data as highly sensitive because, when analyzed over time, it can reveal where individuals travel, how frequently they visit particular locations, and who they may associate with. According to the plaintiff, Walmart collected ALPR information relating to millions of consumers in California, including Polanco, without first implementing and publicly posting a statutorily compliant usage and privacy policy as required by California’s ALPR Law. The complaint asserts that the statute, in effect since 2016, requires ALPR operators and end‑users to adopt a written policy that addresses who may access ALPR data, the purposes for which it may be used, how long it will be retained, how accuracy will be ensured, and how and when the information will be destroyed.

Polanco, a resident of Los Angeles County, allegedly visited Walmart locations in Pico Rivera and the San Gabriel area. On at least one visit to the Pico Rivera Supercenter in June 2026, Walmart’s ALPR system purportedly captured his license plate, associated it with the time and location of his visit, and stored the record in a searchable database. The complaint alleges that Polanco did not know Walmart used ALPR technology, did not understand that his plate information could be retained or disclosed, and did not receive the disclosures required under California law. According to the complaint, if Walmart had complied with the ALPR statute and conspicuously posted a compliant usage and privacy policy, Polanco could have made an informed decision about whether and under what circumstances to visit Walmart stores.

The lawsuit further claims that Walmart’s own privacy materials acknowledge the use of cameras and automated technologies, including ALPR systems, on its properties for purposes such as security, theft and fraud prevention, parking enforcement, and safety. The complaint cites Walmart’s ALPR‑specific privacy notice as evidence that Walmart centrally manages the program and designates certain personnel to access ALPR systems. It also references public reporting and vendor announcements that allegedly show ALPR‑enabled mobile surveillance units were operating at the Pico Rivera store around the time of Polanco’s visit, supporting the allegation that his ALPR information was collected.

Despite these disclosures, the complaint contends that Walmart’s ALPR privacy notice is incomplete under California Civil Code sections 1798.90.51 and 1798.90.53. According to the lawsuit, Walmart failed to disclose specific purposes, processes, and restrictions on the sharing or transfer of ALPR information; did not adequately describe the roles and training requirements of independent contractors authorized to access or use ALPR systems; did not set out a defined process for periodic audits of ALPR practices; and did not provide clear rules for when ALPR data will be destroyed, including data retained beyond the stated 60‑day period. The complaint also alleges that Walmart did not conspicuously post a compliant ALPR policy at its stores or online in a manner reasonably accessible to consumers, instead requiring users to navigate multiple privacy documents to locate ALPR‑related disclosures.

According to the complaint, Walmart knowingly violated the ALPR Law despite being a sophisticated national corporation with substantial legal and privacy resources. The lawsuit alleges that Walmart updated its ALPR and customer privacy notices in 2026 but continued collecting and using ALPR information without including all mandatory operational rules, causing consumers to lose the transparency and control that the law is intended to provide.

Causes of Action

1. Two counts under California’s ALPR Law for failing to implement and post a compliant usage and privacy policy and for allegedly unlawful sharing of ALPR data.
2. A claim for violation of the California Constitution’s right to privacy based on non‑consensual, highly offensive tracking of consumers’ movements.
3. A claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on alleged “unlawful” and “unfair” business practices.

Relief Sought

The lawsuit seeks statutory and actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief requiring Walmart to cease collecting or using ALPR information from California locations unless and until it implements, and conspicuously posts, a fully compliant ALPR usage and privacy policy and adopts appropriate safeguards for access, audits, retention, and destruction of ALPR data.