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

  • October 7, 2013
    ANPR shockwaves emanate from Royston ruling
    Colin Sowman looks at how a ruling regarding ANPR cameras in a small English town could have wide-reaching implications. Superficially it was an easy decision: the local council and traders wanted, and were prepared to fund, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras installed to deter crime in Royston, a small town (population 17,000) in rural England.
  • July 13, 2015
    Uber takes on European critics
    Uber's director of public policy for Europe, Simon Hampton, has suggested that he sees a chance at winning over governments pursuing legal action against the company. “If you're in a city Uber hasn't come to yet, then creating a group of people to say they want Uber and to put pressure on local politicians - that's hard," Hampton said at a panel discussion in the European Parliament, reports euractiv.com. Uber has faced legal inquiries in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy and Portugal ov
  • January 4, 2017
    Redflex enters into non-prosecution agreement with United States
    The Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Ohio (collectively, “DOJ”) have entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., a Phoenix-based automated safety company. The agreement was reached in part due to Redflex’s extensive and thorough cooperation over recent years, which is detailed in the agreement. It included cooperation with the successful prosecutions of several individuals, in
  • February 25, 2015
    New legal basis brings EU wide cross border enforcement
    Pan-EU enforcement is set to become a reality after legislation is revised. In May 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that European Directive 2011/82/EU, which came into force in November 2013 to facilitate the exchange of information between member states in relation to eight road traffic offences, had been set up on an incorrect legal basis. The regulations had been introduced under police cooperation rules on the prevention of crime, but the Court decided that the measures in the Directive do not c