ADT Class Action Alleges Employee Hacked Into Private Cameras

Consumers may have had their privacy breached by an ADT security service technician, according to a recent class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff Shana Doty reportedly received a call from ADT in April 2020, informing her that an ADT security installation technician had granted himself remote access to her security system while working in her home.

Allegedly, the technician used the access to spy on her, her husband and even their minor son in “their most private moments.”

“Moments once believed to be private and inside the sanctity of the home are now voyeuristic entertainment for a third party,” Doty argues in her ADT security service class action lawsuit. “And worse, those moments could have been captured, shared with others, or even posted to the internet.”

According to Doty’s recent ADT security service class action lawsuit, hundreds of other households received notice that they had been victim to the same “staggering invasion of privacy.” Doty and other Texas ADT consumers allegedly had their privacy and safety breached over a seven year period.

“The mental and emotional impact this revelation has had on every person receiving these calls from ADT is immeasurable,” the ADT security service class action lawsuit argues.

“ADT’s failure to protect its customers irreparably destroyed their sense of security, safety, intimacy, and well-being.”

Doty argues that, despite the company touting itself as the “#1 in smart home security,” ADT was responsible for the breach due to its security and unmonitored security services.

Specifically, failures in their Pulse application – a high tier home security package which allows consumers to check on their home even while they are gone. Allegedly, failures in this application allowed the technician to spy on consumers.

“ADT failed to provide the security services its customers paid for by leaving large vulnerabilities in the ADT Pulse application and, as a result, compromised the safety and security of its customers’ homes and family members,” the ADT security service class action lawsuit claims.

“The ADT vulnerability allowed any one of its technicians to grant themselves (or for them to grant anyone else for that matter) access to a customer’s ADT Pulse application and control every aspect of the customers’ home security systems including surreptitiously opening locks and viewing security camera footage.”

To make matters worse, ADT allegedly mishandled the aftermath of the breach “[i]n a frantic effort to mitigate and hide its actions.”

When calling affected account holders, the security service company allegedly offered monetary payments in exchange for a release and confidentiality agreement.

Doty claims that these agreements were misleading and deceptive because consumers may not have been represented by lawyers and were even misled into believing that the release would apply to account holders and non-account holders in a household.

Although news coverage has primarily covered the breach in the Texas area, Doty argues that countless other ADT service installation technicians could have accessed consumer footage due to security failures by ADT.

Based on this, Doty seeks to represent a Class of ADT Pulse customers whose security systems were remotely accessed by an ADT employee or agent without authorization.

The company has reportedly lamented the breach and vowed to regain consumer trust.

“We deeply regret what happened,” an ADT spokesperson said in a statement to Dallas News. “Customers trust ADT with their safety and security, and we understand that this jeopardizes that trust, and it is certainly and entirely unacceptable.”

Although ADT says its focus is on regaining the trust of their customers, plaintiff attorneys’ say that the company must be held accountable for their unlawful behavior.

“These customers trusted ADT with their safety and privacy,” a plaintiff attorney told El Paso Inc. “This privacy breach occurred because ADT did not follow the most basic security procedures. These lawsuits were filed to ensure this company does everything possible to make their systems safe and deserving of the trust their clients place in them.”

Do you have ADT security service installed in your home? Are your concerned about your safety and privacy? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Plaintiffs and the proposed Class are represented by Karina D. Rodrigues of Kelley Uustal PLC; Jaw Edelson, Benjamin H. Richman, and J. Eli Wade-Scott of Edelson PC; Amy M. Carter and Heather V. Davis of Carter Law Group PC; and Matthew R. McCarley, N. Majed Nachawati, C. Bryan Fears, S. Ann Saucer, and Misty A. Farris of Fears Nachawati.

The ADT Security Service Class Action Lawsuit is Shana Doty v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, Case No. 0:20-cv-60972, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Xbox One Controller Drift Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

Is There a Lemon Law in South Carolina?

What is LTD vs Short Term Disability Insurance?

Parents Want Infected Kids Out of Juvenile Detention Centers