GPS Tracking Laws in California 2026

Published date: Last modified on:

By: Ryan Horban

Key Takeaways

5 things to know about GPS tracking laws in California
  • 01
    California Penal Code 637.7 makes GPS tracking without consent a criminal misdemeanor
  • 02
    Vehicle owners can legally track a vehicle they own or co-own
  • 03
    Tracking someone else's vehicle without consent can lead to criminal charges
  • 04
    Employers must follow separate notice requirements under California law
  • 05
    A pending bill could add new location-privacy rules for businesses
Tracking a vehicle you own or co-own in California? Konnect gives you real-time location, speed and geofence alerts, and up to a year of trip history.
Get the Konnect OBD2 Tracker

GPS Tracking Laws in California: What's Legal and What's Not

You want to track a vehicle in California, but you're not sure where the legal line actually sits. Maybe it's a teen driver, a company car, a rental fleet, or a vehicle you co-own with someone else.

I'm Ryan Horban, a GPS tracking expert with more than 15 years of hands-on experience testing vehicle trackers for families, fleets, and businesses across California. This question comes up constantly, and the honest answer is that California's rules are more specific than most states, built around one core statute plus a handful of court decisions that shape how it's applied.

In this guide, I'll walk you through California Penal Code 637.7, what counts as legal versus illegal GPS tracking, how the rules differ for employers and rental companies, and where a pending privacy bill could change things.

⚠️ Not Legal Advice

This guide is for general information only and isn't a substitute for advice from a licensed California attorney. Laws change, and how they apply to your specific situation can vary. If you're unsure whether your tracking plans are legal, talk to a lawyer before installing a device.

⚡ Quick Answer

In California, it's legal to use a GPS tracker on a vehicle you own or co-own. Installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle you do not own, without the consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee, is a misdemeanor under Penal Code 637.7. Employers tracking company vehicles generally have more legal room, but should still provide notice to employees. Rental companies and businesses that collect location data face additional restrictions and disclosure expectations under broader California privacy law.

Trusted by 50,000+ drivers
Konnect OBD2 GPS Tracker
USA Based Support
Free US shipping
30-day returns
Lifetime warranty

Konnect OBD2 GPS Tracker

World's fastest 3-second real-time car GPS tracker

🏷️ Get extra $10 off from here →
  • Updates every 3 seconds — 20x faster than most trackers
  • Plug & Play — Simply plug into your OBD2 port, no tools needed
  • Worldwide Tracking — 150+ countries with dependable real-time GPS updates
$99 $199 Save $100 ★★★★★ 4.7
Get It Now Buy on Amazon

California Penal Code 637.7: The Core GPS Tracking Law

California Penal Code 637.7 is the primary statute governing GPS tracking in California. It applies to individuals, businesses, employers, rental operators, and anyone using an electronic tracking device anywhere in the state.

The core rule is straightforward: no person or entity may use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person without the consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of the vehicle.

The law carves out an exception for law enforcement acting within the scope of their duties, and it doesn't restrict the vehicle's owner from tracking a vehicle they own outright.

Penalties for violating PC 637.7 can include:

  • Criminal misdemeanor charges
  • Up to six months in county jail
  • Fines of up to $1,000
  • Potential civil liability in addition to criminal penalties

The statute has been on the books for years, but how it applies to shared vehicles, co-owned cars, and business fleets has been shaped by later court decisions, which is where things get more nuanced.

Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in California?

Ownership is the deciding factor under PC 637.7. Here's how it generally breaks down.

Vehicle Owners

If you're the registered owner of a vehicle, you can legally install a GPS tracker on it. This covers common situations like monitoring a teen driver, keeping tabs on a vehicle loaned to a family member, or protecting a vehicle against theft.

Co-Owned Vehicles

Co-ownership is where California law gets more complicated. A 2021 California appellate decision, People v. Agnelli, addressed a situation where one registered co-owner installed a tracker on a vehicle without the other co-owner's consent. The court found PC 637.7 to be ambiguous in that context and did not resolve, on a broad basis, whether one co-owner's consent is always enough on its own.

The Agnelli case did not establish that co-owner tracking is legal across the board. It found that the law is vague in that specific situation, which is a narrower and more technical finding. In practice, this means co-owned vehicle tracking carries more legal uncertainty than tracking a vehicle you own outright, and getting explicit consent from every co-owner remains the safer path.

Rental Vehicles

Rental companies occupy a different category. As the registered owner, a rental company can generally place a tracker in a vehicle it rents out, but disclosure matters here too. Being upfront with renters about tracking, typically through rental agreement terms, is the standard practice among major rental operators and reduces legal exposure. If you're running a rental fleet, our Best OBD GPS Tracker for Rental Cars guide covers device selection alongside these disclosure practices.

Tracking Someone Else's Vehicle: Where It Becomes Illegal

Installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle you do not own, without the consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee, is a misdemeanor under PC 637.7. This applies regardless of your relationship to the vehicle's owner or your reason for wanting to track it.

Common scenarios that cross the legal line include:

  • Tracking a spouse's or ex-partner's vehicle without their knowledge or consent
  • Placing a tracker on a friend's or family member's vehicle without asking
  • Monitoring a vehicle registered solely to someone else, even with good intentions

If tracking crosses into monitoring a specific person's movements without consent, particularly in cases involving a current or former partner, it can also intersect with California's stalking statutes, which carry their own separate and often more serious penalties. Our surveillance devices guide discusses lawful, consent-based approaches to relationship-related monitoring concerns.

Criminal offense

A misdemeanor conviction under PC 637.7 carries potential jail time and fines, and a conviction becomes part of your criminal record.

Civil liability

Beyond criminal penalties, unauthorized tracking can expose you to a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy, separate from any criminal case.

GPS Tracking Laws for Employers in California

Employers tracking company-owned vehicles are on firmer legal ground than individuals tracking someone else's personal vehicle, since the employer is typically the registered owner or lessee. That said, California law and general best practice still push toward transparency.

For employer GPS tracking, California practice generally supports:

  • Providing written notice to employees that company vehicles are tracked
  • Limiting tracking to company-owned or company-leased vehicles
  • Avoiding tracking of employees' personal vehicles without separate consent
  • Being cautious about tracking outside of work hours, particularly for take-home vehicles

Some California employers have faced legal challenges tied to location tracking through work-issued devices and apps, not just dedicated GPS trackers, which is a reminder that this area extends beyond hardware. If you manage a fleet, our guide on OBD GPS trackers for company cars walks through employee notice and privacy considerations in more depth.

Key California Court Cases on GPS Tracking

A handful of court decisions have shaped how California's GPS tracking law is applied in practice.

People v. Agnelli (2021)

Covered above, this case addressed co-owner tracking under PC 637.7 and found the statute ambiguous when one co-owner tracks a vehicle without the other's consent, without establishing a broad rule that one owner's consent is always sufficient.

United States v. Jones (2012)

This U.S. Supreme Court decision addressed law enforcement's warrantless use of a GPS tracker on a suspect's vehicle over an extended period, and the Court held that the installation and use of the device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Jones ruling applies directly to government and law enforcement tracking. It does not restrict private individuals or businesses from tracking vehicles they own, but it does reinforce how seriously California and federal courts treat location tracking as a privacy matter.

Data Broker & Telematics Litigation

More recent civil litigation, including cases like Mollaei v. Otonomo, has focused on data brokers and telematics companies collecting and selling vehicle location data, rather than direct tracker installation. This line of cases signals that California courts and regulators are treating location data broadly, not just physical tracking devices, as a privacy concern, which connects directly to why AB 1355 (below) was introduced.

AB 1355: A Pending Bill That Could Change the Rules

Assembly Bill 1355, also called the California Location Privacy Act, was introduced in the California legislature to add new restrictions on how businesses collect, use, and sell location data, including geolocation data gathered through connected vehicles and tracking devices.

As proposed, AB 1355 would have required covered businesses to:

  • Provide clear notice at the point location data is collected
  • Maintain a location privacy policy covering data use and retention
  • Face civil penalties, including Attorney General enforcement, for violations

As of the most recent legislative session, AB 1355 was filed with the Chief Clerk as inactive in early February 2026 and did not advance into law. It is not currently in effect, but bills like this tend to resurface in later sessions, and businesses that collect location data, including GPS tracking companies, should watch for similar proposals going forward. You can follow its status directly through California's official legislative tracker.

Best Practices for Legal GPS Tracking in California

Whether you're tracking a personal vehicle, managing a small fleet, or running a rental operation, a few habits keep you well inside the legal lines.

  • Confirm ownership before installing. Only track vehicles you own, co-own, or have documented authority over.
  • Get written consent for co-owned or shared vehicles. Given the ambiguity left open by Agnelli, don't rely on your own ownership stake alone.
  • Provide notice to employees and renters. A short written disclosure protects you and sets clear expectations.
  • Avoid tracking anyone else's personal vehicle without consent. This is the fastest way to cross from a civil matter into a criminal one.
  • Keep documentation. Rental agreements, employee handbooks, and consent forms all help establish that tracking was disclosed and authorized.

Final Verdict

California's GPS tracking law is more specific than most states, but it isn't complicated once you understand the core rule: track vehicles you own, get consent when you don't, and provide notice when tracking touches employees, renters, or shared vehicles.

People v. Agnelli added real uncertainty around co-owned vehicles, and AB 1355 signals that California regulators are paying closer attention to location data generally, even if that specific bill didn't become law this session. For individuals and small fleets, the safest approach remains simple: confirm ownership, document consent, and disclose tracking to anyone it affects.

Where people run into legal trouble in California is almost never from deliberate intent to break the law. Trouble comes from assuming vehicle ownership gives unlimited tracking rights, or from skipping consent on a shared or co-owned vehicle. Get the ownership and consent piece right, and GPS tracking in California is straightforward and legal.

Sources

Konnect OBD2 GPS Tracker with phone app

Track a vehicle you own, the right way

Konnect OBD2 plugs into your own vehicle and delivers 3-second real-time location, speed and geofence alerts, and a year of trip history — with a free first year of service.

Get $10 Off Konnect OBD2 Buy on Amazon

About the Author

Ryan Horban
Ryan Horban
GPS Tracking Expert 15+ Years of Experience

Over the past 15+ years, I’ve worked with rental operators, fleet managers, Turo hosts, small business owners, and everyday vehicle owners researching how GPS tracking laws apply in real-world situations. My work focuses on practical GPS compliance, vehicle tracking technology, fleet monitoring systems, theft recovery tools, and privacy-related tracking regulations across the United States.

For this guide, I reviewed California Penal Code § 637.7, AB 984 employer tracking requirements, CCPA geolocation privacy rules, relevant California court decisions, and current Turo disclosure policies to explain how GPS tracking laws are applied in California in 2026.

My goal is simple: make complex GPS tracking laws easier to understand so businesses and individuals can stay compliant while still protecting their vehicles, drivers, and property.

Visit Profile

Frequently Asked Questions

On company-owned vehicles, undisclosed tracking may be technically permissible in some states but creates legal risk in most. New York Civil Rights Law §52-c, Connecticut Public Act 98-142, and Delaware Code Title 19 §705 each require written notice before electronic monitoring begins. California requires a separate written consent that cannot be bundled into a standard employment agreement. In New Jersey, Indiana, and Nevada, advance employer notice became a statutory requirement between 2021 and 2023. The cleanest approach in any state is a written notice before activation, with a signed acknowledgement on file.

Yes, and many fleet operators do. The requirement is that your policy must explicitly state that monitoring is continuous, around the clock, seven days a week, on all company-owned vehicles. Courts have generally held that employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in company-owned assets, but several arbitration panels have required employers to prove the employee was clearly informed of 24/7 monitoring before discipline tied to off-hours data can be upheld. Vague language like "during business use" creates the gap that gets challenged.

Placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle you don't own exposes your business to criminal and civil liability in nearly every state. Texas Penal Code §16.06 classifies it as a Class A misdemeanour. California Penal Code §637.7 makes it a misdemeanour on the first offence and a felony on repeat violations. Michigan and Tennessee have similar statutes. Keep all tracking on company-titled assets only, and document that boundary explicitly in your policy scope section.

Standard practice in fleet operations is 30 to 90 days for routine operational data. If your business uses GPS records for customer billing verification, most contracts allow billing disputes within 60 to 90 days, so retention should at a minimum match that window. For fleets subject to FMCSA regulations, some driver activity records must be retained for six months under 49 CFR Part 395. Define the specific retention period in your written policy before data collection begins, not after a dispute arises.

For multi-state operations, yes, at least once. GPS tracking statutes changed in at least five states between 2021 and 2024 based on the NCSL index, and several states have pending legislation. A one-time legal review covering each state where drivers operate, followed by an annual internal check against the NCSL tracker, is a practical approach for most businesses. The cost is a fraction of a single wage-and-hour or privacy dispute over undisclosed monitoring.

Back to blog