Based on reporting by The Verge.
What happened
In Plymouth, Minnesota, the city council voted in September to end its contract with Flock Safety, but the company did not respond and the cameras stayed in place for more than a month. Police Chief Eric Fadden eventually disconnected the devices himself after receiving no reply from the vendor.
Dayton, Minnesota informed Flock on September 18, 2026 that a maintenance work order was on hold and that no work should be performed. Despite the notice, Flock reconnected two cameras inside the city limits without authorization. The company later said it would need up to 60 days to remove the equipment after acknowledging the request.
A comparable dispute occurred in Illinois where Flock refused to dismantle cameras at Elgin Community College after the administration sought to cancel the agreement. Company spokesperson Andrew Smith stated that Flock respects the city’s decision and is working to have the cameras removed.
AIBeat analysis
These incidents could erode municipal confidence in private surveillance providers, as cities may need to allocate additional resources to physically remove equipment when vendors do not comply with termination requests.
One implication is that local governments might consider including stricter contractual penalties or escrow provisions to ensure timely removal of hardware, reducing the risk of prolonged unauthorized surveillance.