# Flock Safety Faces Backlash Over Contract Termination and Equipment Removal Municipalities struggle to decommission surveillance infrastructure as Flock ignores cancellation requests and unauthorized re-installs. - **Source:** [The Verge (theverge.com)](https://www.theverge.com) - **Published:** 2026-11-01 - **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/397e642e-2266-4eb9-9cc5-12df7df7abc6 ## Contract Termination Hurdles Municipalities attempting to end agreements with Flock Safety are encountering significant operational resistance. Despite formal votes to terminate contracts, the company often fails to acknowledge requests or initiate equipment removal. This creates a legal and logistical vacuum where surveillance hardware remains active on public property against the explicit wishes of local city councils. ## Plymouth Police Intervention In Plymouth, Minnesota, the city council voted to terminate its Flock contract in September 2026. After receiving no response from the vendor for over a month, Police Chief Eric Fadden took direct action. He ordered staff to physically disconnect power cords from the cameras to ensure no further license plate data was recorded. ## Unauthorized Equipment Reconnection Dayton, Minnesota, faced a more aggressive issue after requesting contract cancellation. Although Flock acknowledged the request, the company proceeded to reconnect two cameras without authorization. This occurred despite specific instructions from the local police department to halt all maintenance work orders, highlighting a breakdown in communication between the vendor and clients. ## Operational Oversight Failures On September 17, 2026, the Dayton Police Department identified a maintenance order generated by Flock. The city notified the company on September 18 that the program was officially on hold. Ignoring this directive, the company placed the equipment back into service, demonstrating a disregard for the client's explicit operational control over their infrastructure. ## Corporate Stance and Response Flock spokesperson Andrew Smith stated the company respects the city's decision regarding Plymouth. He claimed they are currently working with the customer to facilitate the removal of the cameras. However, this statement contrasts with the practical experiences of city officials who report ongoing difficulties in getting the company to honor their termination requests. ## Broader Pattern of Resistance The issues in Minnesota are not isolated incidents for the surveillance provider. Similar complications occurred at Elgin Community College in Illinois, where the administration sought to cancel its contract. In that case, the company also refused to remove cameras, leaving the institution with active surveillance equipment despite their desire to end the partnership. ## Vendor-Client Relationship Dynamics The friction between Flock and its municipal clients highlights the complexities of managing third-party surveillance infrastructure. When vendors maintain physical control over hardware, cities lose the ability to enforce contract terminations effectively. This power imbalance forces public officials to resort to manual intervention to protect privacy and ensure compliance with local policy. ## Implications for Surveillance Governance These events underscore the risks associated with outsourcing public safety technology to private entities. As cities like Los Angeles move to replace Flock with alternative providers, the difficulty of decommissioning existing systems remains a critical concern. Future contracts will likely require stricter clauses regarding hardware removal timelines and clear penalties for unauthorized equipment operation. ## Sources covering this story - https://www.theverge.com/tech/1024232/flock-ignoring-cancel-contracts — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._