US States Move to Rein in Licence Plate Surveillance – What It Means for London?

A growing number of US states are introducing legislation to regulate the use of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, responding to concerns about privacy, data retention and the patchwork of local rules that currently govern the technology. Arizona, Connecticut, Florida and South Dakota have each advanced bills that would set statewide standards for how law enforcement and other agencies can capture, store and share licence plate data. The Arizona attorney general’s office stated that the issues “are too great to be decided in isolation at the local level,” signalling a shift toward centralised oversight.

The moves come amid broader public backlash against the proliferation of surveillance cameras in cities, where ANPR systems are often used for traffic enforcement, toll collection, parking management and, increasingly, by police for real-time tracking of vehicles. Critics argue that without consistent rules, data can be retained indefinitely, shared across jurisdictions, or used for purposes beyond the original traffic or enforcement rationale.

Why US states are stepping in

Currently, ANPR regulation in the US varies widely by municipality. Some cities have banned the use of the technology altogether, while others have adopted it with few restrictions. The four states now considering legislation aim to create uniform rules that would apply to both public agencies and private operators, such as toll-road companies or parking lot managers.

Key provisions in the proposed bills include limits on how long data can be stored – typically 30 to 90 days unless tied to an active investigation – requirements for public transparency about camera locations and data usage, and restrictions on sharing data with federal agencies or out-of-state entities. The Arizona bill, for example, would prohibit the use of ANPR data for immigration enforcement, a point of contention in border states.

The drive for statewide rules reflects a recognition that local ordinances alone cannot address the cross-boundary nature of vehicle tracking. A car photographed in one city may be tracked through multiple jurisdictions, making a single set of rules more effective than a fragmented approach.

The London parallel

London operates one of the densest ANPR networks in the world, with cameras used for the congestion charge, the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), the Low Emission Zone, bus lanes, red routes and traffic enforcement by Transport for London (TfL) and the boroughs. The technology is also used by the Metropolitan Police for automatic vehicle location and stolen vehicle detection.

The US debate over local vs. state-level control echoes a long-running discussion in the UK about the governance of surveillance data. In London, TfL and the boroughs each manage their own camera systems, and data-sharing arrangements with the police are governed by agreements that are not always transparent to the public. Privacy campaigners have repeatedly called for stronger statutory limits on how long ANPR data can be kept, who can access it, and for what purposes.

Currently, the UK has no single national law that specifically regulates ANPR data. The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sets out principles but is not legally binding. Local authorities and TfL operate under their own data protection policies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

What this means for London readers

For Londoners who drive, cycle or walk through the city, the US developments may signal a wider trend toward tighter regulation of automated surveillance. The congestion charge and ULEZ zones are among the most visible uses of ANPR, but the same cameras also capture data that can be used for other purposes, such as traffic flow analysis or police investigations.

The key question raised by the US legislation is whether the UK should adopt a similar uniform framework. At present, a driver fined for entering the ULEZ without paying has limited recourse to challenge how their data is stored or shared. If US states move toward clear time limits and transparency requirements, it could add pressure on UK policymakers to follow suit.

However, the situation is not directly comparable. The US bills are responses to a fragmented local system, whereas London operates under a single regional transport authority with consistent data policies. The UK government also has a different legal tradition around data protection. Still, the privacy and proportionality arguments are the same.

This article is based on a report from Smart Cities Dive about US state-level legislation. No direct changes to London’s ANPR policies have been announced. The debate remains a live issue among privacy advocates, transport authorities and policing bodies.

Source: Smart Cities Dive, “States move to rein in license plate surveillance as cities face growing scrutiny,” 28 August 2026. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/states-rein-in-license-plate-surveillance-ammid-backlash/829082/