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

  • CCTV brings transit safety into view
    September 15, 2014
    David Crawford looks at camera-based vulnerable road users protection systems.Safe and efficient operation of road-based transit depends on minimising the risks of incidents involving other vehicles or vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and passengers boarding or alighting from buses or trams. The extent and quality of the visibility available to drivers is crucial in preventing and avoiding incidents. Conventionally, they have had to rely on fairly basic equipment - essentially the human
  • FEMA and Dutch motorcyclists question Tesla’s type approval
    October 19, 2016
    Dutch motorcyclists’ organisations Motorrijders Actie Groep (MAG), the Koninklijke Nederlandse Motorrijders Vereniging (KNMV) and Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations (FEMA) have written to RDW, the Netherlands Vehicle Authority, to express their concerns about the way car manufacturers implement driver assist systems. According to FEMA, crashes, studies and evasive answers to its questions FEMA indicate that these systems are not properly tested and certainly not with motorcycles. FEMA
  • Tolling companies to be investigated unlawful importation of RFID products
    January 8, 2016
    RFID solutions provider Neology, a subsidiary of SMARTRAC, has said that the US International Trade Commission (USITC) has instituted an investigation into Neology's complaint that Kapsch, Star Systems International, and Star RFID have committed unfair acts through infringement of US patents 7,119,664, 8,325,044, and 8,587,436.
  • San Francisco bans facial recognition
    July 23, 2019
    San Francisco has become the first US city to ban facial recognition software – and it is a move which has implications for transit agencies as well as police forces worldwide Big Brother is watching you’, goes the famous saying. Well, not in San Francisco he isn’t. Legislators in the Californian city – home to the tech gold rush and embracers of all things forward-looking – have decided that, after all, there should be limits to technology’s hold over us. By a margin of eight votes to one, the city’s