ADT Tagged with Class Action Alleging Unsafe Systems

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Early this week, a class action lawsuit was filed against home and business security system provider, ADT Corp., alleging the company’s systems are particularly vulnerable to hacks by unauthorized third parties but ADT refuses to acknowledge this and deceptively markets them as safe and secure.

Lead plaintiff Santiago Hernandez claims in the class action filed in Florida federal court that ADT markets its security systems to home and business owners as safe and reliable, touting its use of cutting edge technology. In reality, ADT’s systems are particularly vulnerable to attack by third parties because they rely on unsecured and unencrypted wireless signals, the plaintiff alleges.

In the ADT class action lawsuit, the plaintiff claims to have entered into a three-year contract with ADT for a home security system that utilized wireless communication about a year ago. The plaintiff says that if he had known the ADT system was vulnerable to hacking through its wireless system, he would not have entered into the contract or purchased the ADT system.

Hernandez further alleges that ADT is aware of the vulnerability in its systems, but fails to notify consumers relying on the company’s protection for their homes and businesses.

“ADT’s misleading marketing statements and omissions are particularly egregious given that they provide a false sense of security to those individuals and businesses that are most vulnerable: Individuals and businesses who are seeking the comfort of an extra level of security that a home security system provides,” the ADT class action states.

The plaintiff further claims that ADT relies on wireless communications that monitor homes and businesses for smoke, movement and other emergencies and that customers can access via smart phones or computers to monitor their homes by video. However, the communications are easily subject to intrusion using a “software defined radio,” alleges the plaintiff. Using this device, an unauthorized third party can hack into the system to track use, trigger alarms, jam the system, or even disable it.

“In some cases, this causes ADT to call customers and inquire whether they want the police summoned to their home,” Hernandez says. “Troublingly, third parties can use this tactic to see if specific customers actually have the police summoned to their homes; if not, the third parties can use that information to target those customers for home invasions (or worse.)”

According to the ADT lawsuit, by not acknowledging their systems’ vulnerability to hackers and third party interception, ADT is in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment by its alleged false marketing.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all U.S. Class Members who entered into ADT contracts and purchased ADT wireless security systems, along with a subclass of Florida residents. If the class action is successful, the plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of ADT revenues, an order stopping ADT from continuing their marketing practices, and a requirement that ADT engages in a corrective advertising campaign.

Hernandez is represented by Jonathan Stein of Saxena White PA.

The ADT Security False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Hernandez v. The ADT Corp., Case No. 9:16-cv-80335, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.