Telemarketing Calls Lawsuit Says ADT Makes Spam Calls

A telemarketing calls lawsuit says that ADT makes spam calls, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In her telemarketing calls lawsuit, plaintiff Jo Lynn Tadlock claims that she received a call from ADT on Aug. 15, 2018, promoting the company’s security services. She says that she has never been a customer of ADT, nor has she consented to receive telemarketing calls from ADT.

Tadlock argues that because she never consented to receive the calls, ADT was in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act which protects individuals from receiving bothersome spam calls placed using certain automated equipment. Tadlock seeks damages both for herself and for all other people who received spam calls from ADT without their consent.

Allegedly, when Tadlock received the call on Aug. 15, 2018, she received a voicemail advertising a promotion for an ADT alarm system. Allegedly, the voicemail urged Padlock to press 1 to have an agent call her back, or press 9 to talk to an agent immediately.

She says the message stated “with break-ins on the rise and this great promotion, it’s never been a better time to talk to use about an ADT alarm system for your home or business.”

Tadlock says that the message did not provide a phone number that she could call back to request the company to not all her.

According to the ADT telemarketing calls lawsuit, Tadlock never gave ADT her phone number, and did not consent to receive the calls. She also says that she had no prior affiliation or business relationship with ADT. Tadlock states that her phone number has been on the national do-not-call registry since Aug. 4, 2010.

The ADT telemarketing calls lawsuit says that the TCPA prohibits businesses from robocalling individuals without their prior consent. It also prohibits businesses from calling phone numbers on a national do not call registry.

Allegedly, ADT used a pre-recorded message when calling Tadlock and other individuals who did not consent to be called by the company. Padlock claims that “the tone and cadence of the voice on the message left on [her] cellular phone is characteristic of an artificial or pre-recorded voice. The robotic pacing and intonation of the voice audibly differs from a live human voice.”

The TCPA does permit businesses to call individuals for emergency purposes. But Tadlock says ADT’s call was not for emergency purposes, and rather was aimed at getting her to purchase ADT’s products and services.

Tadlock argues that ADT knew or should have known that its contact with Tadlock and other customers was in violation of the TCPA, but continued to make contact with them nonetheless.

She argues that the company has a vested interested in knowing of the TCPA regulations. Additionally, she says that the company has already faced multiple lawsuits claiming that the company violated the TCPA, so it knew or should have known that its practices were unlawful.

Tadlock notes that the TCPA allows people who were subjected to calls that violate the TCPA can seek up to $500 in statutory damages for every call the company negligently placed in violation of the TCPA, and can seek up to $1,500 in statutory damages for every call that ADT knowingly placed in violation of the TCPA. She seeks these damages for herself and all other similarly affected individuals.

The ADT Telemarketing Calls Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-25077-MGC, in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now