Brinks Home Security Class Action Says Consumers Unfairly Charged For Text Alerts

Brinks Home Security has been hit with a class action lawsuit by a customer who claims that he is being charged for text alerts without his consent.

Jacob Silver says in November 2011, he entered into an agreement with the defendant for the monitoring of his alarm system. He claims that he has continued to pay monthly for the home security services.

Silver states that, starting in 2018, his monthly bill included a new $2.95 charge for Brinks Messaging, plus applicable sales taxes.

The plaintiff maintains that he was not aware that Brinks messaging was added to his monthly invoice until after he was charged for the service. He states that he has paid for all of Brinks messaging services during all of the months that the charge has appeared on his invoice.

Silver claims that on at least three occasions since he was enrolled in the messaging service, his alarm system was activated, but he did not receive an alert from Brinks messaging with a link to the portal that would allow him to cancel the alarm.

In February 2020, Silver explains that his alarm was activated but he did not receive a message from the messaging service. So, he contacted Brinks about the issue and was told by a customer service representative that the Brinks messaging service had been discontinued for some time due to technical issues.

“Plaintiff thus discovered he had been charged monthly (and continues to be charged) for Brinks Messaging despite the fact that Defendants no longer provide the service,” the Brinks class action lawsuit goes on to state.

Silver alleges that despite discontinuing and deactivating their messaging service, the defendants continued to charge customers fees for Brinks messaging. 

The plaintiff claims that the same unfair and deceptive conduct was experienced by all putative Class Members and involves the same business practices that were described in the complaint. 

Silver argues that each of the deceptive acts and practices set forth in the class action complaint constitute violations of New York General Business Law §349.

In addition, the plaintiff states that these actions were not a unique, one time occurrence without the possibility of replication and without implication for the consuming public.

“The deceptive conduct of which Plaintiff and the Class Members are victims is highly capable of repetition, occurred on a repetitive basis, and may occur in the future on a repetitive basis,” the Brinks messaging class action lawsuit states.

In addition, the defendant’s practice of charging the plaintiff and Class Members for a service which has been discontinued was materially misleading and demonstrates bad faith and willfulness.

Silver says the defendant’s contracts with him and putative Class Members are plausibly understood by a reasonable customer to mean that the defendant was providing the Brinks messaging service.

Also, the plaintiff maintains that the failure to state on invoices and billing statements that the messaging service had been discontinued constituted a material omission.

The defendant knew that the misrepresentations were false and inaccurate and engaged in the conduct to encourage customers to agree to and pay for a service that did not exist, the Brinks messaging class action lawsuit states.

“Defendants discontinued/deactivated Brinks Messaging no later than March 2019 and subsequently failed to provide Brinks Messaging to Plaintiff and the Class Members, despite charging them for the service,” the Brinks messaging class action lawsuit goes on to say.

In addition, Silver says that the defendant has profited and benefited from charging him and potential Class Members for the messaging service.

He states that Brinks has been unjustly enriched at the expense of him and the Class.

Common questions of law and fact in this class action lawsuit include: 1) whether Brinks continued billing and accepting payments from consumers for Brinks messaging after it discontinued use of the text messaging service constitutes unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable practices; 2) whether Brinks failure to deliver the services offered by their messaging service constituted a breach of contract; and 3) whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched by soliciting and accepting customers’ payments for the messaging service after discontinuing the service.

Prospective Class Members include: “Each person who, with regard to a property in New York State, has paid one or more fees to Brinks Home Security for Brinks Home Interactive Messaging powered by ASAPer after Brinks Home Security discontinued/deactivated the service.”

Do you own a Brinks Home Security System and were charged for text messaging? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Daniel A. Schlanger and Evan S. Rothfarb of the Schlanger Law Group LLP and Beth Ellen Terrell and Ben Drachler of the Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

The Brinks Messaging Service Class Action Lawsuit is Jacob Silver v. Livewatch Security LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02478, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Lyft Faces Lawsuit After Denying COVID-19 Sick Leave

Treasure Island Las Vegas Suing for COVID-19 Business Coverage

Hackensack Meridian Health Sued Because of Hospital Ransomware Attack

IED Attacks in Iraq Traced to Big Bank Financing