By Adam Kriegel, VP Business Development & Partnerships

Our industry is at a crossroads. Another in-person conference, another hot take from a vendor on stage, looking right at Passport and asking us to share our private user data.

While some private companies are publicly pushing the narrative that citations via email provide a way to circumvent the existing process, we remain firm in our role as stewards of this user data and dedicated to following established legal channels. But how did we get here?

Cities are modernizing curb management at a rapid pace, and with that comes pressure to streamline enforcement. In the challenge to reach drivers after they’ve vacated their parking space, some have suggested a shortcut: using customer email addresses collected for parking payments to send violation notices, rather than performing an authorized DMV license plate lookup.

On the surface, this may seem efficient. In reality, it raises serious legal and trust concerns.

Why This Matters For Cities

• DMV lookups are regulated. License plate–to–registrant information is protected. Access is permitted only to sworn officers or authorized staff within the jurisdiction. This is foundational to due process.
• Email addresses are not authorization. A resident or visitor who enters an email address to pay for parking has not agreed to receive a legal violation in that manner. Repurposing this data without explicit consent is misuse, not innovation.
• Stewardship builds trust. Cities and their technology partners should treat customer data as belonging to the resident, not as a workaround to avoid proper procedures.
  

What Responsible Enforcement Looks Like

• Authorized access only. Violations tied to license plates must continue to be validated via proper DMV channels, by the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred.
• Opt-in for digital notices. If email or text delivery becomes part of enforcement, it must be an explicit user choice: residents should knowingly agree to receive violations electronically.
• Transparency and city control. Cities—not vendors—set the rules for how data is used, who can access it, and how violations are communicated.

Looking Ahead

There may be a role for digital channels in the future. Email or text delivery could reduce paper, improve timeliness, and align with how residents already engage with city services. But this is only viable if:

• Residents opt in transparently
• The legal framework is updated to recognize electronic delivery as a valid service
• Cities maintain clear ownership and control over the process

Innovation should not come at the expense of due process or public trust. Shortcuts that attempt to bypass DMV lookups risk legal challenge and reputational damage. Cities that lead with transparency, authorized access, and data stewardship will continue to set the standard for fair, trusted curb management.