LPR Repo Data Theft Lawsuit Filed in Texas

Lawsuit Alleges Former DRN Employee and Repo Rivals Hijacked LPR System for Millions

LPR Repo Data Theft Lawsuit Filed in Texas

Dallas County, TX – April 13, 2026 – Everything was a fairytale until it became a lawsuit. And a major part of that lawsuit has just been filed. A lawsuit that could shake the very pillars of the repossession and LPR industries.

A newly filed lawsuit in Dallas County is alleging a coordinated scheme in which competitors gained unauthorized access to a proprietary LPR vehicle-location data system, then used it to divert repossession opportunities for their own profit.

Read the Lawsuit Here!

The case, filed April 6, 2026, by The Car Source, LLC, doing business as HNS Recovery, accuses Collateral Recovery Team, LLC, Stealth Towing and Recovery Services, LLC, and an individual, Nasem (Naz) Akel, of orchestrating a data access and manipulation operation that allegedly caused “millions of dollars” in damages.

Naz was allegedly an employee of Digital Recognition Network (DRN) at the time of the alleged breaches. Naz was formerly a VP of Operations at DRN’s sister company MVTrac. Naz and a party not named in the lawsuit were allegedly released from employment in September of 2025, almost six months after HNS discovered the breach. complained to DRN about the breach.

DRN is not named in the lawsuit. Future legal filings may be forthcoming.

At the center of the dispute is a license plate recognition (LPR) data platform, technology widely used across the industry to identify and locate vehicles for repossession. According to the complaint, HNS Recovery generated tens of millions of license plate scans per month, including roughly 20 million in Texas alone, feeding critical, time-sensitive data into the system.

Allegations of Unauthorized Access and Competitive Exploitation

HNS Recovery claims the defendants gained improper, elevated access to this platform, allegedly through insider assistance. The lawsuit states that Akel, described as a key contact associated with the platform provider, facilitated “backdoor” access that allowed competing agencies to view and exploit proprietary data.

With that access, the defendants allegedly:

Viewed real-time and historical vehicle location data
Identified high-probability repossession opportunities
Acted on those opportunities before HNS Recovery could

The complaint further alleges that competitors effectively “free rode” on HNS Recovery’s scanning infrastructure, using its data to locate and recover vehicles without incurring the same operational costs.

Claims of Data Suppression and Manipulation

Beyond access, the lawsuit alleges something more troubling: interference.

HNS Recovery claims it experienced unexplained outages where no recovery “hits” were received for days at a time, an anomaly given the scale of its scanning operations. In one instance, the company reportedly received a sudden batch of approximately 860 delayed hits all at once after raising concerns.

According to the filing, this pattern suggests that data may have been:

Suppressed
Delayed
Diverted to competitors

The complaint alleges this allowed competing agencies to act first on recovery opportunities that should have belonged to HNS Recovery.

Platform Provider Findings

The lawsuit states that the platform provider later confirmed a breach involving employee login credentials and traced suspicious activity to IP addresses allegedly linked to competing agencies.

Unauthorized access was reportedly terminated around September 2025 following an internal investigation. Afterward, HNS Recovery claims its recovery volume increased significantly, by hundreds of additional recoveries per month, suggesting prior losses were tied to the alleged misconduct rather than market conditions.

Legal Claims and Financial Stakes

The lawsuit outlines a wide range of claims, including:

Tortious interference with contracts and business relationships
Violations of Texas computer security laws
Civil conspiracy
Theft of proprietary business data
Unjust enrichment

HNS Recovery is seeking more than $1 million in damages, along with punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits allegedly gained through the scheme.

The company also alleges the conduct was intentional, coordinated, and carried out with “malice,” potentially exposing defendants to uncapped punitive damages under Texas law.

Industry Ramifications

If proven, the allegations could have far-reaching consequences for the repossession industry, where access to real-time data is often the difference between recovery success and failure.

The case raises critical questions about:

Data security in LPR platforms
Vendor trust and insider risk
Fair competition in a data-driven recovery environment

It also highlights the vulnerability of agencies that rely heavily on third-party platforms to deliver time-sensitive recovery intelligence.

Perhaps most significantly, the lawsuit suggests that manipulation of data flow, not just access, could impact outcomes in ways that are difficult to detect in real time.

What Comes Next

The case will proceed in the 191st Judicial District Court in Dallas County, where a jury trial has been requested.

At this stage, the allegations remain unproven, and the defendants have not yet responded publicly in the filing.

But for an industry increasingly built on data, the outcome of this case could redefine how that data is protected, and who can be trusted to control it.

At this point, no lawsuit has been filed against DRN. While the initial allegations in this lawsuit are consistent with another Texas agency who was mentioned in the “The Tale of the LPR Network” fairytale posted at the end of March, they have not to date filed any legal actions.

Disclaimer:
The claims described in this article are allegations contained in a legal filing and have not been proven in a court of law. All parties named are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. Lenders, forwarders, and other industry participants are strongly encouraged not to base current or future business decisions or relationships solely on these allegations, but instead to conduct their own due diligence and await the outcome of the legal process.

Kevin Armstrong

Publisher

The Tale of the LPR Network