Ring Class Action Says Security Cameras Spy on Customers

Ring LLC has been hit with a class action lawsuit by consumers who claim that the home security company allows hackers to access their system and spy on them in their own home.

Plaintiffs Ashley LeMay and her husband Dylan Blakeley bought two of Ring’s devices in November 2019 and installed the cameras in the house so that LeMay could keep watch on her children while she was at work.

The couple says they were also hoping that the cameras would inform them if their middle daughter began experiencing a seizure when they were not home.

On Dec. 4, 2019, the plaintiffs claim that the camera started live streaming and the song “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” began to play via the two-way talk feature of the device. Then, a hacker started talking to their daughter and started shouting racial slurs at her, the Ring class action lawsuit states.

“To this day, Ring has not disclosed the identity of this unknown hacker to the Blakeleys, who have no way of knowing the motives of the digital intruder or whether he still poses a threat to the safety of their family,” the plaintiffs allege.

A similar situation happened to plaintiffs Todd Craig and his girlfriend Tania Amador. While at home, these plaintiffs claim that they were interrupted by a voice coming from the camera shouting, “Ring support! Ring support!” They claim that a hacker had accessed their Ring device and said, “I’m outside your front door.”

The Ring class action lawsuit states that similar incidents have occurred in states like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Texas.

The plaintiffs note that “It is well known that Ring devices are vulnerable to hacking; hackers casually share software to hack Ring cameras online, including through the Discord forum.”

In addition, the Ring class action states that Ring has not put into place basic security precautions to make sure that their customers’ security cameras are safe.

The plaintiffs allege that Ring has not admitted that their security devices have been breached and have stated that there is no problem with the security and privacy of their cameras.

“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to hold Ring responsible for its defective devices and systems, require that Ring take all necessary measures to secure the privacy of user accounts and devices, and compensate Plaintiffs and the Class members for the damage that its acts and omissions have caused,” the Ring class action lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs say Ring claims that their cameras reduce crime and have helped the company foster a surveillance network around the country, which is assisted by tax-funded camera discount programs and partnerships with more than 600 police departments.

The Ring class action lawsuit states that the company’s advertising and marketing materials claim that their product will make homes safer and provides a comforting message that they are watching over their customers.

That said, the plaintiffs allege that Ring does not implement basic industry measures to provide security to their users’ accounts.

The Ring class action lawsuit states that there is a vast difference between the security measures that the company has in place in contrast to companies that are not even in the security business, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

“Ring’s security failures are contrary to its public representations regarding security and constitutes a breach of the duty that Ring owes its customers,” the class action lawsuit states.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed at the end of last year against Ring from customers who claim that the company’s devices are susceptible to hackers.

Do you own a Ring security system? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hassan A. Zavareei, Katherine M. Aizpuru and Annick M. Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Norman E. Siegel, Barrett J. Vahle and J. Austin Moore of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

The Ring Security Class Action Lawsuit is Ashley LeMay, et al. v. Ring LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00074, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Blue Buffalo Class Action Says Dog Food Is High In Carbs

Wage and Hour Claim Resolved for $3.7M

IAMS Class Action Says ‘Grain Free’ Dog Food Is Mislabeled

Uloric Lawsuit Claims Company Hid Heart Risks