Skip to main content

Monkey Parking app ‘illegal and predatory’

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has issued an immediate cease-and-desist demand to Monkey Parking, a mobile peer-to-peer bidding app that enables motorists to auction off the public parking spaces their vehicles occupy to nearby drivers. A letter issued by Herrera's office to Paolo Dobrowolny, CEO of the Rome, Italy-based tech start-up, cites a key provision of San Francisco's Police Code that specifically prohibits individuals and companies from buying, selling or leasing public on-street pa
June 25, 2014 Read time: 2 mins
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has issued an immediate cease-and-desist demand to Monkey Parking, a mobile peer-to-peer bidding app that enables motorists to auction off the public parking spaces their vehicles occupy to nearby drivers.

A letter issued by Herrera's office to Paolo Dobrowolny, CEO of the Rome, Italy-based tech start-up, cites a key provision of San Francisco's Police Code that specifically prohibits individuals and companies from buying, selling or leasing public on-street parking.

Herrera's cease-and-desist demand to Monkey Parking includes a request to the legal department of Apple, which is copied on the letter, asking that the technology giant immediately remove the mobile application from its App Store for violating several of the company's own guidelines which provide that "Apps must comply with all legal requirements in any location where they are made available to users" and that "Apps whose use may result in physical harm may be rejected."

Motorists face penalties of up to US$300 for each violation.  Because Monkey Parking's business model is wholly premised on illegal transactions, the letter contends that the company would be subject to civil penalties of up to US$2,500 per violation under California's tough Unfair Competition Law were the city to sue.

"Technology has given rise to many laudable innovations in how we live and work—and Monkey Parking is not one of them," Herrera said.  "It's illegal, it puts drivers on the hook for US$300 fines and it creates a predatory private market for public parking spaces.”

Related Content

  • EU rules extend the ‘long arm of the law’
    November 27, 2013
    New EU legislation allows authorities to collect fines from errant foreign motorists even after they have returned to their own country. New European Union legislation means drivers in many Member States can be prosecuted for breaking traffic laws when driving outside their home country. While not all the Member States will not be signing up to Directive 2011/82/EU facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences, for those that do the deadline date to impleme
  • US adopts automated enforcement… gradually
    March 4, 2014
    The US automated enforcement market is in rude health as the number of systems and applications continues to grow and broaden. Jason Barnes reports. Blessed and cursed – arguably, in equal measure – with a constitution which stresses the right to self-expression and determination, the US has had a harder journey than most to the more widespread use of automated traffic enforcement systems. In some cases, opposition to the concept has been extreme – including the murder of a roadside civil enforcement offici
  • EU urged to fast-track revised cross-border enforcement law
    July 21, 2014
    TISPOL and its road safety partners across Europe are urging the EU to fast-track the adoption of a modified law on cross-border enforcement of traffic offences such as speeding. The modified rules, published by the European Commission, come in response to a European Court of Justice ruling in May that said the existing law, which came into force in November last year, had been adopted on an incorrect legal basis. The ECJ has said the current rules could remain in effect until May 2015 while new legisla
  • Tech giants could herald loss of MaaS policy control
    March 25, 2020
    With tech giants targeting the transport sector, could local authorities lose control of their means of delivering policy?