ADT Class Action Claims Glass Break Detectors are Defective

ADT Security has been hit with a consumer class action lawsuit claiming that it deceptively markets its glass break detectors.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed last week by a California resident who claims his house was burglarized because his ADT home security system failed to detect the breaking of a glass window.

In the complaint alleging misrepresentation, fraud, negligence and other claims, plaintiff Matthew Williams says ADT’s security systems can only detect the cracking or splintering sound of broken pane glass and not tempered glass, of which most windows today are made.

ADT Security claims that its glass break detectors – also called audio discriminators – work by detecting break-ins by “hearing” the sound of breaking glass when, in reality the plaintiff claims, they only detect the cracking or splintering sounds of broken traditional pane glass and not the sound of broken tempered glass.

This may prove to be a problem for many ADT Security customers since the majority of windows are made of tempered glass these days – which, if broken, the devices don’t detect, the lawsuit states.

“This defective design creates a dangerous condition whereby a homeowner present when a break-in occurs may be under the reasonable expectation that an alarm has been conveyed to ADT, and the need for assistance conveyed to law enforcement or other emergency personnel, when in reality an alarm has not been triggered,” the lawsuit claims.

Williams allegedly purchased an ADT security system for his home in 2008 and paid ADT a monthly fee for security monitoring. Additionally, Williams leased the devices making up the security system from ADT.

Despite the ADT home security system, Williams was a victim of burglary, which was accomplished when the audio discriminators incorporated into his home security system failed to detect the breaking of tempered glass window through which the burglar(s) gained entry.

Williams asserts that ADT Security technicians never told him that the audio discriminators installed as part of his home security systems were ineffective in detecting the breaking of tempered glass, even after inspecting on two occasions prior to the break-in.

“ADT is and has for some time been aware that its audio discriminators are defective inasmuch as they will not detect the breaking of tempered glass,” the lawsuit continues. “ADT nevertheless advertised and continues to advertise its home security systems that incorporate audio discriminators are effective in detecting break-ins where entry is attempted by breaking a window.”

Williams contends that had he known that the audio discriminators included in his home security system would be ineffective in detecting break-ins where entry is attempted through tempered glass windows, he would not have purchased the ADT security system and related monitoring services.

The plaintiff is bringing this action individually and on behalf of a nationwide Class of consumers who paid for an ADT home security system incorporating audio discriminators during the past 10 years.

Williams is also seeking certification for a California subclass as well as a Property Theft subclass who were victims of burglary where entry was gained through a broken tempered glass window being monitored by an ADT Security audio discriminator that failed to detect the break-in.

The class action lawsuit is seeking actual and statutory damages, including punitive damages and is asking for an order compelling ADT Security to conduct a corrective advertising campaign.

Williams is represented by Kevin A. Seely and Ashley R. Rifkin of Robbins Arroyo LLP and Jack Fitzgerald of the Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC.

The ADT Security Defective Audio Discriminators Class Action Lawsuit is Williams v. ADT LLC, Case No. 16-cv-1268-JAH-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: On Aug. 4, 2016, ADT moved to dismiss the defective audio discriminators class action lawsuit stating that the plaintiff’s 20 different claims are “facially defective” and the proposed Class is too broad.