This case concerns the Parking Alarm developed by Vector Wise. It prevents people from forgetting to pay parking fees. Users of the Parking Alarm app must purchase a smart camera. When a scanning vehicle drives by, the smart camera reports this to Vector Wise. The Parking Alarm app then sends a notification for €1.50: pay within 5 minutes. This causes damage to the municipality, or at least a loss of income from parking fees and fines.
The judge "prohibits Vector Wise from offering and using (or allowing others to use) the system under the name Parkeerwekker (...) in the municipality of Amsterdam." This ruling comes as no surprise. However, there are some interesting aspects to the case, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. Below are some interesting considerations from the judgment.
It is noteworthy that the statement claims that human checks are always carried out. This may have been prompted by a desire to avoid falling under the prohibition of Article 22 of the GDPR. It seems implausible. It seems to me that random checks are carried out, but it is highly unlikely that every single photo is viewed: "If the municipal parking tax system shows that no parking tax has been paid for a license plate that has been scanned, an inspector at the office will assess whether there is a special situation on the basis of photos. In case of doubt, the parking inspector may assess the situation on site. In some situations, no fine will be imposed." (grounds for the judgment 3.2)
It is remarkable that a point that requires no substantiation is substantiated in a way that a student would not get away with (ground 3.4.): '"To substantiate the assertion that it is foreseeable to everyone that Parkeerwekker promotes the evasion of parking taxes, reference is made to quotes from articles on the Top Gear website dated September 9, 2020, the MT Sprout website, and autoblog.nl.
The defense rightly draws a comparison with Flitsmeister. The judge makes a meaningless observation (grounds for the judgment 4.8):
First of all, these are different apps that are used in different situations.
Really? The judge continues:
“Furthermore, there are no known rulings in which a judge has permitted the use of Flitsmeister or similar apps (or has not deemed them unlawful).”
The judge explicitly leaves open the question of whether Flitsmeister is unlawful. An interesting point. Flitsmeister should be banned! Or, if not, then Parkeerwekker should be allowed too.
(1) Journal for Internet Law
More articles by SOLV Lawyers
