South Carolina's Attorney General asks Flock Safety about AI use, data access and data retention

Key takeaways

• The letter is a request for information. Neither the release nor the letter states a penalty, finding or order.
• It asks three things: whether Flock uses AI to identify vehicles or people, what restrictions apply to data access, and whether it imposes mandatory retention policies.
• The letter says Flock represents that it "does not employ facial identification technology and has built-in restrictions on data access."
• It asks for answers within thirty days of receipt, and the sources do not give the receipt date.

What did the South Carolina Attorney General send to Flock Safety?

A letter dated 2 October 2026 to Garrett Langley, Flock's chief executive, under the subject line "Flock Safety Privacy and Security Policies". The Attorney General's office announced it in a release dated 5 October 2026, which opens "Today, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson sent a letter to Flock Safety" (so dispatch is placed on the release date, while the letter itself is dated 2 October) and describes it as "regarding their privacy and safety policies, considering public representations made by the company." The release quotes him: "It is imperative that citizens' concerns are heard and that their privacy is protected."

The letter says Flock has made numerous public representations about its policies and that under South Carolina law it has an obligation to ensure they are truthful and not deceptive, citing S.C. Code Ann. 39-5-20. It also says many South Carolina law enforcement agencies have chosen to use Flock, and that Flock covers more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states. Those figures are the Attorney General's statements, which we did not check against Flock's own materials.

What does the letter ask?

Three questions, as the letter numbers them. First, whether Flock employs any form of artificial intelligence in identifying vehicles or people. Second, what restrictions Flock places on access to data, including whether it helps facilitate sharing data across multiple customers, including government agencies, to a "broader network", and who can access that network. Third, whether Flock imposes any mandatory data retention policies and, if so, what they are.

The letter frames the questions around a stated representation: that Flock does not employ facial identification technology and has built-in restrictions on data access. The Attorney General asks Flock to respond within thirty days of receipt and closes by saying "we must find the right balance between public safety and personal privacy." The letter does not say what the Attorney General will do after the response.

Is this an enforcement action, and does it bind anyone?

On the pages we read, no. Neither document states a violation, penalty or order. The letter requests a response within thirty days of receipt and does not state any consequence for not responding, and it is addressed to Flock alone. The statute it cites is the legal basis for the Attorney General's interest in the truthfulness of Flock's statements. The letter does not say Flock has breached it. Whether the inquiry leads anywhere is not stated, and we treat it as an inquiry.

What does it mean for public-safety AI vendors, procurement counsel and privacy teams?

For vendors, the three questions are a short list of what a state regulator may ask about a camera and analytics product: what AI runs on the data, who can see it, and how long it stays. For procurement counsel at agencies that buy such systems, the letter notes that customers across South Carolina use Flock, and the questions map onto contract terms on data sharing, access controls and retention. For privacy teams, the letter ties the inquiry to the vendor's own public statements, so a gap between a trust page and actual practice is the exposure the letter points at. In our reading, none of this is a new rule, and it applies by analogy only.

What should these teams do now?

• List every public statement your product or agency makes about AI use, facial identification, data access and retention, and note where each is supported.
• Write a plain answer to each of the letter's three questions as they would apply to you, and keep the evidence behind it.
• If you buy or operate ALPR or similar systems, check your contract for data-sharing across agencies, who holds access rights, and mandatory retention periods.
• Watch for any published response from Flock or follow-up from the Attorney General; none was in the sources we opened.

What are the key dates?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the Attorney General's press release of 5 October 2026 and the two-page letter dated 2 October 2026 that it links. The letter is an image-only scan, so we read it from the images.

What we did not open: Flock's trust page and blog post that the letter cites, any response from Flock, any other state's inquiry, and the text of S.C. Code Ann. 39-5-20. The date Flock received the letter is not stated, so the response period has no computed end date. The 120,000 cameras and 49 states figures are as stated in the letter.

What we refuse to claim: that Flock violated any law or misrepresented anything, that the inquiry is an investigation or enforcement action, what Flock's practices actually are, or what the Attorney General will do next.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Consumer privacy and law enforcement disclosure by an AI provider
• Colorado Attorney General AI Act and ADMT rulemaking
• Massachusetts Attorney General AI consumer protection advisory
• Texas TRAIGA attorney general enforcement