Canary Connect Class Action Says $10 Monitoring Fee is Bait-and-Switch

Customers of Canary Connect say that the company used bait-and-switch when they started charging separately for features that once came standard with their home security systems.

A group of consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Canary Connect, a company that sells home security systems. The five plaintiffs say that they purchased security systems for the company that were sold with monitoring systems included in their purchase. But, after a change in the company’s policy, the plaintiffs say they were forced the pay for the monitoring systems separately.

The five customers call this change a “bait and switch,” arguing that they were were advertised a product with certain services but were unable to use what they had paid for after the company made the change. The customers claim that they were financially injured by the company, and seek damages on behalf of themselves and all other similarly affected customers.

The Canary Connect class action lawsuit says that before Oct. 3, 2017, customers who bought home security systems could access almost all of the home security system features via the Canary app after they made the purchase of the home security systems. There allegedly was no separate cost to access these features initially.

The customers argue that the company advertised the security system with these features, “leading consumers to reasonably believe that these features would remain with the [home security systems] at no additional charge.”

The customers go on to state that around Oct. 3, 2017, the company changed what features were included with the purchase price of the home security systems. Allegedly, the company removed three key features from what was initially included in the purchase price. The services were then offered them to customers under Canary’s Membership Fee paywall at $9.99 per month.

Allegedly, customers who purchased the home security systems before Oct. 3, 2017 were not exempt from these charges, and thus had to pay additional costs for what was originally sold to them as included in their purchase price.

The Canary Connect class action lawsuit says that a number of features were removed and then offered for an additional charge, including the following:

• The ability to receive alerts of motion-detected activities when users are at home and the system is disarmed, or when users are asleep
• Unlimited video retention of intrusions
• The ability to download recordings and access them for over 24 hours

The Canary Connect customers claim that had they known that these features would not be available after Oct. 3, 2017, they would not have purchased the product or would not have paid as much for them. They claim that the company intentionally misled them about the length of time that they would be able to access these features in an attempt to get more customers to purchase the products than would have otherwise.

The customers are represented by Nina Varindani, Timothy J. Peter, Bonner C. Walsh of Walsh PLLC, and Michael Fuller of OlsenDaines PC.

The Canary Systems Bait and Switch Class Action Lawsuit is Jeffrey B. Reifman et al. v. Canary Connect Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-11365-PGG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.