ADT Seeks Dismissal of Faulty Glass-Break Detector Class Action

Security company ADT has moved to dismiss a consumer class action lawsuit alleging its security systems fail to detect breaking windows as advertised.

The company along with co-defendant Honeywell International moved for dismissal Aug 4. The two companies say the 20 different claims in plaintiff Matthew Williams’ ADT class action lawsuit are all facially defective. They also argue his proposed plaintiff Class is too broad.

The defendants say that Williams failed to allege facts specific enough to state a claim for fraud.

Williams says he relied on representations that his security system was effective for detecting the sound of breaking glass. The defendants argue that because he failed to state “who made the representation, when it was made, how it was made,” and the context in which effectiveness came up in the transaction, the litigation should be dismissed.

The alleged defects apply to Williams’s claims for fraud and five other fraud-related claims, ADT argues. Similar defects sink his claims based on theories of negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty, they say.

Williams filed this ADT class action lawsuit in May 2016. He says ADT security systems use Honeywell-made components known as audio discriminators to detect the sound of breaking glass.

The plaintiff claims these audio discriminators fail to detect the sound of breaking tempered glass, the type of glass from which many modern windows are made. They can only detect the sound of cracking or splintering untempered pane glass, he claims.

Despite the alleged defect, ADT continues to advertise its security systems that use audio discriminators are effective at preventing burglaries where entry is attempted by breaking a window.

Williams claims his own home was burglarized due to failure of an ADT security system.

According to the lawsuit, Williams says he bought a Brinks Home Security system in 2009 that included a Honeywell audio discriminator. Defendant ADT purchased Brinks the next year. He also signed up for monitoring of the system by ADT, in exchange for a monthly fee.

When the break-in happened, Williams claims his ADT security system failed to detect the sound of a breaking window due to the alleged defect in its audio discriminators. He says that two ADT technicians who visited his home after the burglary told him the sensors could not detect the sound of breaking tempered glass.

In the current motion to dismiss, ADT also takes issue with Williams’ proposed Class. The company argues the proposed Class definition is too broad. It would encompass consumers who had other claims that were not in common with the ones Williams alleges, preventing them from having the unity of interest required for class action treatment.

The proposed nationwide plaintiff Class would represent all persons who, over the last 10 years, paid for ADT monitoring of a home security system that incorporated Honeywell audio discriminators.

A proposed California subclass would represent all such Class Members who live in California, and a proposed Property Theft subclass would represent all Class Members who lost property due to a burglary in which entry was gained through a broken window that was supposedly monitored using one of the audio discriminators at issue.

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

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