By Jay Landers
Plaintiffs in a class action against ABM Industries Inc., FlashParking Inc., and Parkpliant LLC filed an amended complaint on April 20, keeping alive a suit that seeks to restrict parking operators from obtaining driver vehicle registration data. A federal judge had dismissed the case on March 30.
Originally filed more than two years ago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the case known as Andrew Stegmeyer, et al. v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al. addresses whether the federal law known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prohibits parking operators from obtaining personal information from nonpublic motor vehicle records for enforcement purposes.
The original claims
In their initial complaint filed in January 2024, plaintiffs Andrew Stegmeyer and Amanda Brinton stated that they each received a collection notice from the parking operator ABM after parking at Chicago’s Regal City North movie theater in June 2023. The two maintained that they had parked at the lot for years either without having to pay or having to pay a total of $2. The complaint acknowledged the presence of a “small sign” at the facility entrance informing drivers that they need to use a mobile phone app or a kiosk in the movie theatre to pay for parking. However, the plaintiffs said that they did not see it upon entering the facility, which they maintain was open and had no gates.
Stegmeyer said that, months after parking at the facility, he received a collection notice from ABM for a parking charge of $60, which subsequently increased to $260 following his refusal to pay. Brinton said that within days of parking at the facility, she received text messages from ABM stating that she owed $80. After not paying, Brinton received subsequent messages indicating that the amount owed had increased to $240. The communications to Stegmeyer and Brinton included pictures of the rear of their vehicles and close-up images of their license plates.
According to the initial complaint, parking technology provider Flash allegedly provided the license plate recognition (LPR) cameras used at the ABM facility, while parking compliance services provider Parkpliant allegedly used license plate data from ABM and Flash to obtain the pertinent vehicle registration information from such entities as a state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). These details then are used to send text messages and letters to drivers that fail to pay for parking, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs argued that obtaining personal information in this manner without the consent of the individuals in question violates the DPPA, the 1994 law enacted by Congress to limit the types of information that state DMVs may release. What is more, the actions of the defendants resulted in the plaintiffs sustaining “harm including but not necessarily limited to, intrusion upon their seclusion, invasions of their privacy, the time wasted reviewing defendants’ collection messages and the data and space used on their mobile devices,” according to the initial complaint.
In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs sought to have the case certified as a class action and requested both injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from continuing to obtain and use DMV data for parking enforcement purposes, and monetary relief in the form of statutory damages of $2,500 per DPPA violation for each class member, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.
Lack of standing found
In their response submitted in April 2024, ABM, Flash, and Parkpliant argued that sending notices seeking payment for services voluntarily used by the plaintiffs does not constitute an injury. Therefore, they called on the court to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
On March 30, 2026, Judge Andrea R. Wood did just that, entering a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs were free to file an amended complaint by April 20.
In her March 30 order, Wood noted the “alleged harms here are limited to the receipt of unwanted letters and text messages.” As such, the conduct of the defendants “does not amount to an intrusion upon Plaintiffs’ seclusion,” Wood said. The judge also denied the claim by the plaintiffs that their emotional distress related to the case is sufficient to justify standing.
Noting that Congress passed the DPPA to protect individual safety and privacy, Wood found that the plaintiffs fail to make a persuasive argument that they were harmed in either of these regards. “[U]nder the factual allegations presented, Defendants’ mere possession of Plaintiffs’ personal information does not amount to an actual injury in fact,” Wood said.
Notably, Wood highlighted in her order “other factual scenarios” that might give the case standing. “For instance, had Plaintiffs alleged that their personal information was obtained as part of an extortionate parking scheme, whereby Defendants tricked them into parking on Defendants’ parking lots and then obtained Plaintiffs’ personal information to coerce them into paying fees that they did not owe, the Court’s standing analysis would likely be different,” Wood wrote.
The revised claims
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs adopt a strategy in keeping with that suggested by Wood, alleging in their April 20 amended complaint that ABM, Flash, and Parkpliant engage in a “extortionate, deceptive, and unlawful parking scheme which deceives consumers into parking on lots those consumers believe are free of charge.”
“Defendants operate parking facilities that are deliberately structured to appear open, public, and free of charge, often lacking gates, attendants, ticket dispensers, or clear and conspicuous signage informing motorists that payment is required,” according to the April 20 amended complaint. “This design is part of a systematic scheme to induce motorists to park under the reasonable belief that no payment obligation exists. Worse, ABM then adds exorbitant fees on top of the ‘charges’ it surprises motorists with, ballooning a simple parking charge into a debt exceeding $200 in some cases.”
Such practices violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the plaintiffs, who continue to contend that the parking companies violated the DPPA by obtaining their personal information without their consent.
“Defendants then use license plate recognition technology to obtain Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ personal information in order to coerce them into paying unlawful parking fees with unconscionable penalties — which they did not owe — through threatening, unwanted text messages and letters,” according to the amended complaint, which adds a third named plaintiff, Jeremy Gentry.
Because of these actions, the plaintiffs “suffered economic harm, including the payment of fees that were not disclosed, agreed to, or lawfully owed, as well as charges that far exceed the fair market value of parking,” according to the April 20 filing. “In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members were subjected to the unauthorized collection and use of their personally identifying information through Defendants’ undisclosed tracking practices, a clear invasion of their privacy, and incurred time and expense in responding to Defendants’ demands,” the filing states.
In the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek certification of both a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass, and request a combination of declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On the federal DPPA claim, they seek statutory damages of $2,500 per violation for each class member, along with injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from continuing their alleged data practices. On the new claim regarding the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, they seek actual damages, including restitution of all parking fees and penalties already paid by plaintiffs and class members, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief enjoining defendants’ alleged deceptive practices. Across both counts, plaintiffs also request attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, as well as punitive and exemplary damages where permitted by law.
The defendants have until June 4 to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. ABM and Flash did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Parkpliant declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also did not respond to requests for comment.
JAY LANDERS is the editor-in-chief of Parking Today. He can be reached at [email protected].
