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

  • LA solar powered parking meters boosts city’s revenues
    March 2, 2012
    IPS Group, a San Diego-based high-tech parking meter company, has announced the completion of the installation of 10,000 new coin and credit-card parking meters throughout the city of Los Angeles.
  • Maturing photo enforcement gains legal status, public support
    August 2, 2012
    In the US, affirmation of the photo traffic enforcement sector's legal status and rising public support were significant aspects of 2009. James Tuton, President and CEO of American Traffic Solutions, looks back over the year. In 2009, the photo traffic enforcement industry in North America continued to grow and mature, accompanied by increased public, legislative and legal scrutiny. While public support remains strong, we also saw increased attempts to undermine the industry by representatives of a small bu
  • Disability Rights California sues San Diego over dockless scooters
    January 30, 2019
    While the clutter from mis-used dockless scooter schemes is frustrating for many, it is physically unsafe for some, according to a legal action in the US. Disability Rights California slams an ‘unregulated onslaught’ in its class action lawsuit against the City of San Diego and three dockless scooter firms: Lime, Bird and Razor. “This action challenges the failure of the City of San Diego and private companies to maintain the accessibility of the city’s public sidewalks, kerb ramps, crosswalks and transit
  • Drunk driver can sue power company for accident
    August 16, 2013
    The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a drunk driver and her passenger can sue the county and a utility company for a 2005 car crash, overturning a lower court's decision in a case involving a 2005 crash. The Supreme Court ruled that government entities have a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, even if the driver is at fault. The controversial decision means cities, counties and utility companies can be held liable when faulty road designs lead to injuries in car crashes