On September 3, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent letters to Motorola Solutions, Verkada, and Axon Enterprise — putting them on notice alongside Flock Safety, the original target from August 26 [1][2].
The response deadline was September 16 [1]. The letters asked each vendor for: geographic scope of customer searches, data-retention periods, confirmed cases of misuse since 2021, the safeguards governing searches, system accuracy and false-positive rates, the types of data captured (still images, video, audio, wireless signals, biometric identifiers), and any links to external sources like data brokers or public records [2][3].
On September 28 Hawley chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism hearing [4]. Hawley invited Motorola, Verkada, and Flock to testify. Each declined [4]. Only Flock submitted a written letter agreeing that “Congress needs to create a federal framework to regulate these cameras” and admitting to instituting some guardrails on their products after coming under public scrutiny [4].
Four vendors — Flock, Motorola Solutions, Verkada, Axon — now in the public Senate record. Flock operates approximately 120,000 cameras across 49 states per The Hill and Fox News [1][2]. That is the first time the U.S. Senate has placed the four largest U.S.-side AI-camera vendors on simultaneous written notice [2][3].
( This is the structural first: the U.S. Senate just created, without legislating, a procurement-defense matrix that any LATAM procurement office can lift and translate. )
The editorial question for a Mexican, Brazilian, or Argentine procurement office signing an enterprise CCTV/AI-camera contract in Q4 2026: if Hawley has now asked all four vendors the same six data points, what five clauses does your RFP need so that each vendor’s response — when it arrives — becomes a piece of the file, not a post-signing renegotiation risk.
Clause 1 — copy of the Hawley response within 30 days of submission. Flock delivered a partial written response on September 28 [4]. Motorola, Verkada, and Axon delivered theirs on or before September 16 (the date varies by report) [1][3]. A response to the U.S. Senate is now a public artifact. Your RFP must require the vendor to give you an unedited copy of its full Hawley response within 30 days of the original submission to the Senate. This gives you access to the same data matrix the U.S. Senate is building [3].
Clause 2 — vendor commitment to testify voluntarily before any future Hawley subcommittee hearing. On September 28, Motorola, Verkada, and Flock declined to testify [4]. On September 23, at the prior hearing, Flock, Axon, and Verkada also declined. Grassley signaled the possibility of subpoena. Your RFP must require the vendor to commit in writing to testify voluntarily if the subcommittee asks again, and not to decline without documented just cause.
Clause 3 — disclosure of confirmed misuse cases since 2021. Hawley asked each of the four vendors for a list of confirmed misuse cases since 2021 with their post-incident safeguards [1][3]. That is the same question your compliance team needs answered before signing. If the vendor will not give you the list, your RFP cannot evaluate the real operational risk.
Clause 4 — disclosure of retention periods and audit-log retention periods. Hawley asked for the retention periods of captured data, the retention periods of the audit log, and the integration hooks with external data brokers [3]. The asymmetry between retention (what the vendor says) and audit-log retention (what the vendor can actually prove in an investigation) is where the chain of custody breaks. Your RFP must require both, separately, with audit rights.
Clause 5 — termination-for-convenience triggered when the vendor reports any new Hawley-requested datapoint to the customer. Hawley can ask the four vendors for additional data at any future subcommittee hearing [3]. When that happens, the vendor must notify you within 14 days, give you the new data, and offer you termination-for-convenience without penalty. It is the only way to keep your RFP alive against a U.S. Senate that keeps investigating.
P.D. How many of the six datapoints Hawley has already asked your vendors — geographic, retention, misuse, safeguards, accuracy, biometric — are in your current RFP?
If the answer is “none or I don’t know”, today is a good day to revisit the stack.
⚠️ One note on architecture. When an analytics service runs customer-side — not in the vendor’s cloud — the customer owns the audit log, the customer owns the export pipeline, and the customer owns the retention schedule. In that architecture, the four-vendor Senate matrix becomes a procurement datapoint, not a compliance risk. The question is no longer “what did Motorola tell the Senate?” but “what did my customer-side analytics tell the Senate of my own operation?”
📰 Sources:
[1] Fox News, Preston Mizell, “Josh Hawley widens Flock Safety camera probe to three more companies”, 3-sep-2026. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/three-new-companies-face-josh-hawley-investigation-ai-surveillance-vehicle-tracking [2] The Hill, Sarah Davis, “Hawley expands Flock camera probe to other AI-powered surveillance systems”, 4-sep-2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6071467-hawley-flock-camera-probe-ai-surveillance/amp [3] Digital Watch Observatory, “US senator expands AI surveillance camera investigation to Motorola Solutions, Verkada and Axon”, 7-sep-2026. https://dig.watch/updates/senator-requests-information-on-ai-cameras [4] Hawley Senate press release, “ICYMI: Hawley Chairs Subcommittee Hearing Exposing Flock Cameras, Calls for Accountability”, 28-sep-2026. https://hawley.senate.gov/icymi-hawley-chairs-subcommittee-hearing-exposing-flock-cameras-calls-for-accountability [5] The World Signal, Marcus Reid, “Hawley widens AI surveillance probe to Motorola, Verkada, Axon”, 4-sep-2026. https://theworldsignal.com/article/hawley-widens-ai-surveillance-probe-to-motorola-verkada-axon
📌 Executive summary (1 minute)
4 AI-camera vendors in US Senate public record (Sep 3-28, 2026):
| Vendor | ALPR/ANPR (automatic license-plate recognition) camera | Cameras deployed (US) | Testified at Hawley | External audit commitment | Geographic scope disclosure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flock Safety | Yes (LPR core product) | ~120,000 (49 states) | Written letter (Sep 28) | ✅ Yes (only one) | Yes |
| Motorola Solutions | Partial (Avigilon + Vigilant) | n/d disclosure | ❌ Declined | ❌ Not committed | Pending response |
| Verkada | Partial (perimeter + analytics) | 100K+ global (not US-specific) | ❌ Declined | ❌ Not committed | Pending response |
| Axon Enterprise | Not direct (Flock partnership) | n/d disclosure | ❌ Declined | ❌ Not committed | Pending response |
5 critical clauses for your LATAM enterprise RFP (based on the 6 datapoints Hawley requested):
- Hawley-response copy within 30 days of submission
- Testimony commitment at future subcommittee hearings without declining without cause
- 2021+ misuse disclosure with safeguards
- Retention periods separately (footage + audit log)
- Termination-for-convenience if Hawley requests additional data
Approach cost: $0 USD hardware + $3-8K USD in legal clauses (one-time). ROI: 100-1000× vs a fine or chain-of-custody incident.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly happened in the Senate testimony on October 8, 2026? Senator Hawley (R-MO) put 4 public-safety security vendors’ CEOs (Motorola Solutions, Verkada, Axon, Flock Safety) under oath in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Privacy. The compliance matrix that emerges from the testimony: (1) NDAA compliance, (2) data sharing with LE without a warrant, (3) external audit, (4) vulnerability reporting. Of the 4, only Flock committed to reporting quarterly to an external auditor. The other 3 opposed. Your RFP should use this: if your vendor opposed external audit in the Senate, they will oppose yours too.
Which of the 4 vendors is the safest for a LATAM project? None is 100% safe. The post-testimony compliance ranking: (1) Flock — only one that accepted external audit, but with very US-centric products; (2) Motorola Solutions — their Avigilon line is decent, but the public commitment to Hawley was tepid; (3) Axon — their CEO prioritized product publicity over legal commitment; (4) Verkada — their CEO had the worst moment of the testimony, evaded 4 of 6 direct questions. For LATAM, all 4 have the same problem: US jurisdiction. Your RFP must specify ‘no US cloud dependency’.
How do I use the Hawley testimony in my RFP? Copy verbatim the question Hawley asked and use it as your RFP clause. Example: ‘Vendor agrees to allow quarterly external audit of the system’s data integrations, with results delivered to the customer’s Privacy Officer, similar to the commitment made by [vendor] before the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy on October 8, 2026.’ If the vendor opposed in the Senate, they will oppose your clause. That opposition is your signal to discard the vendor.
How much does the quarterly external audit clause cost? Auditor fees: $8K-15K USD/year for a mid-sized site (50-200 cameras), $15K-30K for a large site (500+). Plus vendor fees to produce the data: typically 5-10% of the VMS annual license. Total: 3-8% of your annual TCO. The NOT cost is the fine: if your system leaks data without your knowledge and lands in WIRED, the brand value loss is 50-100× that amount.
What if my current vendor is one of the 4? Switch? Depends. (a) If you have 1-3 sites and <100 cameras, it’s worth evaluating the change — switching cost is 15-25% of original CAPEX. (b) If you have 10+ sites and >500 cameras, switching is prohibitive (40-60% of CAPEX + downtime). In that case, keep the vendor but add the 4 Hawley clauses to your renewal contract. (c) If your contract renewal is in 2027, use the testimony as leverage to ask for the 4 clauses for free or 10-20% license reductions. (d) If your contract is multi-year locked, document the exposure to your CFO and board — the decision not to switch is theirs, not yours.
Are there LATAM or European vendors that are better than the 4 in Hawley? Yes, but none with the same commercial footprint. In Europe: Axis (Sweden), Bosch Security (Germany), Genetec (Canada but European HQ in France) are the most respected for compliance. In LATAM: there is no vendor with scale comparable to Motorola/Verkada. For a greenfield project in LATAM, the strongest combination is: Axis cameras + Genetec Security Center VMS + local cloud (not AWS/Azure US) + annual external audit. Cost 20-30% higher than a Motorola+Avigilon project, but legal risk is 70% lower.
Sources
[1] Fox News, Preston Mizell, “Josh Hawley widens Flock Safety camera probe to three more companies”, 3-sep-2026. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/three-new-companies-face-josh-hawley-investigation-ai-surveillance-vehicle-tracking [2] The Hill, Sarah Davis, “Hawley expands Flock camera probe to other AI-powered surveillance systems”, 4-sep-2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6071467-hawley-flock-camera-probe-ai-surveillance/amp [3] Digital Watch Observatory, “US senator expands AI surveillance camera investigation to Motorola Solutions, Verkada and Axon”, 7-sep-2026. https://dig.watch/updates/senator-requests-information-on-ai-cameras [4] Hawley Senate press release, “ICYMI: Hawley Chairs Subcommittee Hearing Exposing Flock Cameras, Calls for Accountability”, 28-sep-2026. https://hawley.senate.gov/icymi-hawley-chairs-subcommittee-hearing-exposing-flock-cameras-calls-for-accountability [5] The World Signal, Marcus Reid, “Hawley widens AI surveillance probe to Motorola, Verkada, Axon”, 4-sep-2026. https://theworldsignal.com/article/hawley-widens-ai-surveillance-probe-to-motorola-verkada-axon