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

  • Why AI could be the saviour of public transport – if we let it
    April 16, 2025
    Get it right and the rewards could be there. Thomas Ableman looks at how transport in the UK – and beyond – might be transformed by artificial intelligence…
  • Emissions reductions targets to have major impact on transport
    October 28, 2015
    As bold moves aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been introduced in California, David Crawford looks at the ramifications for transportation. California Governor Jerry Brown’s recent dramatic raising of the bar on emissions reduction policy for the state has won him praise from Japan, Australia, Europe and the secretariat of the critical UN conference on climate change being held in Paris in November/December 2015. His April 2015 executive order aimed at bringing emissions to 40% below 1990 lev
  • Report forecasts major growth in smart parking
    September 24, 2013
    According to new analysis by Frost & Sullivan, Future of Vehicle Parking Management Systems in North America and Europe, growth opportunities are expected to attract new start-ups in the parking industry, providing real-time parking applications. The industry is expected to witness investments and funding from venture capitalist (VC) firms, ranging from US$200-$250 million in the next three to five years. This is made evident through the emergence of companies, such as Streetline (US and Europe), ParkatmyHo
  • A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    May 30, 2013
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe