Six federal ALPR bills are now in Congress. Your LATAM CCTV/ALPR RFP cannot ignore any of them.

On October 2, 2026, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) filed the Ban Flock Act (Automatic License Plate Reader Restriction Act) in the U.S. Senate.[1][2][3][4] It is the first federal ALPR-prohibition bill of the 119th Congress[3] — and the first to include a private right of action that lets any American sue the federal government for rights violations carried out through ALPRs.[1][4]

( three operative clauses + one citizen-sue clause, all in 14 pages )

The bill prohibits federal agencies from using ALPRs, blocks federal grant funding to state and local governments that deploy ALPRs or contract with ALPR vendors, and opens a private right of action against the federal government.[1] Per the Ocasio-Cortez press release, Flock operates more than 120,000 cameras that scan 20 billion vehicles every month in the U.S.[1] — and “at least 56 municipalities have deactivated, cancelled, or rejected contracts with Flock” so far in 2026.[1] Sanders: “Going to the doctor? Flock knows. Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching.”[1]

The Ban Flock Act is not alone. Six pending federal bills touch ALPRs in this Congress: Hawley’s Stop Flock Abuse Act (which regulates ALPR operation),[5] four House bills (Burchett federal-prohibition, Krishnamoorthi conditioning transportation funds, Massie prohibiting federal funds for ALPRs, Self requiring a warrant for federal use of state/local ALPR data),[5] and the Casar-Brown letter to FBI Director Kash Patel about the FBI’s planned nationwide acquisition of ALPR data access.[5] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a separate letter the same day demanding answers from Flock CEO Garrett Langley on the National Lookup Tool by October 16.[4]

The editorial question for a Mexican, Brazilian, or Argentine procurement office signing an enterprise CCTV/ALPR contract in Q4 2026: if your preferred ALPR vendor has just been named in one of six pending federal bills, which three disclosure-and-continuity clauses does your RFP require before signing:

  1. Federal-bill disclosure clause — the vendor warrants in writing that it will notify the customer within 14 days of any federal bill advancing in committee that could affect the viability of the vendor’s product. If Hawley asks Motorola / Verkada / Axon for a response by October 16,[3] your RFP must require that response reach your purchasing desk within 30 days of submission.

  2. Termination-for-convenience on federal prohibition — the customer has the right to terminate the contract without penalty if any federal ALPR-prohibition law takes effect during the contract term. The Sep 23 Hawley Senate subcommittee hearing,[3] the Sanders-AOC-Merkley Ban Flock Act,[1] and the Oct 13 FCC component-part rule are all triggers that an RFP signed in August did not anticipate.

  3. No-invocation of private right of action against the customer — the vendor warrants it will not invoke any private right of action (including the one created by Section 5 of the Ban Flock Act[1]) against the customer arising from an ALPR violation defined by federal law, even if the customer is the data controller. The asymmetry matters: the bill creates a right of action against the federal government, not against the customer-operator — and your RFP must close that door before a vendor attorney opens it.

P.D. How many of the six pending federal ALPR bills does your legal team know about today? If the answer is “none”, today is a good day to request an internal briefing before the next Hawley vendor response on October 16[1] changes the status of any contract you signed in 2025.

Sources