Flock is altering the deal. Pray it does not alter it further.

How Flock Contracts Normally Work

The typical Flock contract consists of four primary documents, explicitly incorporated into one agreement:^[1][2] (1) an Order Form, (2) a Master Service Agreement, (3) a Deployment Plan, and (4) a Reinstall Fee Schedule.

Order Forms can often be found in City Council meeting minutes; they look like a purchase order for cameras (even though it’s a subscription for software). Unless you’re in Iowa, the Master Service Agreement is typically available via public records request—some cities publish it in agenda packets. The Deployment Plan is generally withheld for various made-up reasons, and the Reinstall Fee Schedule is a page on Flock’s website that Flock can change at will.

In that standard structure, the Order Form typically has the signature page, which contains something like:

By executing this Order Form, Customer represents and warrants that it has read and agrees to all of the terms and conditions contained in the Master Services Agreement attached.

So far, aside from the misleading layout of the Order Form, and agencies’ attempts at hiding these agreements from elected officials and the public, this is all fairly run-of-the-mill.

The Switch to Web-Based Terms

That changed recently. Flock adopted new Order Forms. They are virtually identical to the old ones, but, right above the signature line the new Order Form now reads:

By executing this Order Form, Customer represents and warrants that it has read and agrees all ^[3] of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms of Service located at https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions

While we know that even opening a pack of protein powder requires agreeing to terms on a website, it is uncommon, and highly concerning, for a city government to agree to a contract that is maintained exclusively by a vendor.

We’re not talking about a $5 refund if you don’t like your protein: these contracts are worth millions in some cases, and, more importantly, they control and inform the government’s decisions about your rights and your freedom.

Agencies like the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) have previously found that parts of the contract published on a vendor’s website are not subject to open records laws:

the City did not possess the records identified as the “deployment plan” and the “reinstall fee schedule.” [The City] indicated that [it] would not seek to acquire the documents from the third party vendor

In a non-precedential decision, IPIB concluded that this made the online portions of the contract the property of the vendor, and not subject to the Iowa Open Records Act:^[4]

Because the City provided all requested documents within its possession, additional documents requested were the property of the Vendor rather than a public document belonging to the City, there is no violation of Iowa Code

This interpretation was always unhinged, but now that nearly the entirety of the contract has been moved to Flock’s website,^[5] it has become outright disturbing.

New Order Forms Void Old Protections

Although the terms stipulate that modifications must be in writing, the exception is “as set forth herein.” At the bottom of its Terms & Conditions page, Flock includes the notice “these Terms and Conditions are subject to change.”

It is not possible to get a copy from archive.org’s Wayback Machine, because, according to Wayback Machine Director Mark Graham, Flock has expressly requested that its website be excluded.

This means you can’t use The Wayback Machine to pull up a copy of the terms, as they were when your city signed it.

“But,” you might say, “my city already signed a paper contract, so we’re safe.”

I wouldn’t be so sure.

This Agreement … supersedes and cancels all previous or contemporaneous negotiations, discussions or agreements, whether written and oral, communications and other understandings relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. … None of Customer’s purchase orders, authorizations or similar documents will alter the terms of this Agreement, and any such conflicting terms are expressly rejected.

This language appears to create a mechanism whereby if the customer signs a new Order Form, for a contract extension or an extra camera, or even to repair a camera or to add new users, it replaces all prior agreements.

Smaller expenditures like repairs will almost universally happen through a city’s consent agenda, or police chiefs will simply sign the forms themselves, depending on state law and city policy.

The chance of an Order Form for “camera repair” getting flagged as replacing a preexisting agreement is approximately zero.

Of course, Flock is likely to quietly proceed under the new terms, even if the city doesn’t flag it.

What Changed in December 2025

What follows are some important changes from a comparison between a copy of Flock’s October 2024 terms, archived as current in July 2025, and the new, December 19, 2025 terms.

There may have been versions in the interceding period, but, as stated before, The Wayback Machine does not archive them, and I don’t regularly save the T&Cs for companies I have no relationship with. Yet.

Data Ownership: Flock wants it all, Flock gets it all

Perhaps the biggest change is that under Flock’s new terms, cities no longer own the video, images, or audio, even if that information is captured via non-Flock cameras that the city owns outright but plugged into “Wing,” FlockOS, or similar “Flock Services.”

The new language reads:

For clarity, Customer Data does not include the underlying raw Footage captured by the Flock Hardware […] “Footage” means still images, video, audio, and other raw data captured by the Flock Hardware or Customer Hardware via the Flock Services.

This is a marked departure from the language in earlier contracts:

“Customer Data” means the data, media, and content provided by Customer through the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, the Customer Data will include the Footage. […] As between Flock and Customer, all right, title and interest in the Customer Data, belong to and are retained solely by Customer.

As well as from the information in the “fact sheets” Flock makes available through its Press Center page:

The new terms align with the arguments by the Washington cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Wooley, in their lawsuit seeking to end police accountability: it is Flock’s data until a city downloads it.

The Court in that case reviewed the contract then in effect and did not find that argument persuasive, but it appears it is the contractual reality for Flock customers—both new and existing.

Flock IP: You get what Flock decides to give you

The fairly reasonable definition of Flock IP, more or less limiting the phrase to mean “stuff Flock made” is no more. This definition:

1.9 “Flock IP” means the Services, the Embedded Software, and any intellectual property or proprietary information therein or otherwise provided to Customer and/or its Authorized End Users. Flock IP does not include Footage (as defined below).

Is now replaced with:

1.9 “Flock IP” means the Flock Services, the Embedded Software, and all intellectual property or proprietary information therein or otherwise provided to Customer or its Authorized End Users, including, but not limited to, Flock’s technology, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, algorithms, data models, machine learning methods, documentation, and any modifications or improvements. For clarity, Flock IP also includes any derivative works, intermediate or final outputs, analyses, reports, models, or other results generated by or through the Flock Services. Except for the limited ability to access and download Customer Data within the applicable Retention Period, no rights are granted to download, extract, export, or otherwise create or retain copies of such derivative works, outputs, or other elements of the Flock IP.

This definition is so broad that they even have to make a specific exception for the “limited ability to access and download Customer Data”—data the marketing materials still claim customers own outright.

“Customer Data” is now explicitly part of “Flock IP.”

Flock further restricts even the “limited ability” with a new clause:

For clarity, Flock retains the exclusive right to determine and control the method, timing, format, and medium of such access or delivery, and is not obligated to provide Customer Data in any alternative form, format, or transmission method outside of the Web Interface.

Even if the original footage is available to Flock, you may get an edited or altered version (e.g. cropped or with watermarks overlaid), or a reduced-resolution version. You may also get it late, or never, and the conditions for access are at Flock’s discretion.

And you will like it.

Retention Periods: Indefinite storage, no limits

1.15 “Retention Period” means the time period that the Customer Data is stored within the cloud storage, as specified in the applicable Order Form. … For clarity, Customer Data does not include the underlying raw Footage

In other words, the contract is silent on the retention period for the Footage, which is no longer owned by the Customer.

This appears to give Flock permission to retain footage indefinitely.

Liability: You’re responsible for Flock’s failures

The contract always indemnified Flock to a frankly absurd extent. It required customers to agree that the service may not be fit for purpose and limited financial damages to some laughably small amount.

That wasn’t enough for Flock, so they added a new section:

9.4 Customer Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless Flock against any damages, losses, liabilities, settlements, and expenses in connection with any claim or action that arises from an alleged violation of Customer Obligations, Customer’s Installation Obligations, Customer’s sharing of any Customer Data, including any claim that such actions violate any applicable law or third party right.

Altering the Deal

Once a Flock customer agrees to these new online terms and conditions by executing any new Order Form, there is nothing preventing Flock from altering the deal further. Flock controls the terms of its own contract.

Cities like Denver, which negotiated special terms and conditions, risk having those terms wiped out by running a new Order Form through the consent agenda—if the new order form does not include the exact “Special terms” of the original, the original terms are superseded.

As we have come to expect, Flock is not doing this in good faith or with transparency. The most recent modification was on December 19, 2025, when most city officials have long left for their holiday break.

There is always a massive push to get contracts signed before the end of the year and city councils tend to let themselves be pushed around; contracts signed in haste before December 31 will have the new terms.

What This Means

The pattern is clear: Flock is systematically relocating contract terms from negotiated documents into its own vendor-controlled portal, then modifying those terms at will.

Flock’s marketing materials are still on its website, insisting that “Customers own 100% of the data collected.” The contract now says the opposite: cities own “Customer Data,” but “Customer Data does not include the underlying raw Footage.”

The footage—the actual surveillance images of your car, your face, your movements—belongs to Flock.

Cities that signed contracts believing they owned their data may discover, upon signing any subsequent Order Form, that they’ve quietly agreed to surrender any ownership rights they thought they had.

If you want to know what the situation is for your city: even if they signed a contract before today, file public records requests and ask for copies of any new Order Forms—even if for repairs.

If those forms reference the website, the protections your city council promised you may be null and void, and the terms are now under Flock’s exclusive control.

I am not an attorney. This analysis reflects my interpretation of contract language and is subject to change. Cities should consult qualified attorneys regarding their specific agreements.

---

(January 30, 2026): It was pointed out that this article lacked sample order forms containing the reference to the online terms. Two examples follow.

---

1. Plus the CJIS security addendum, management control agreement, information exchange agreements and other federally required documentation. ↩︎

2. Recent contracts have removed direct references to the Deployment Plan and reference vague “attachments” instead. ↩︎

3. sic ↩︎

4. The District Court did not agree. IPIB appealed. The case is pending a decision by the Iowa Court of Appeals. ↩︎

5. Where Flock blocks users using VPNs. ↩︎