ADT Misrepresented When In-Home Security Cameras Would Record, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges ADT has misrepresented to consumers when, exactly, its in-home security cameras would record, with the company claiming they would only do so in an alarm-triggering active emergency situation.

The plaintiff, an Oklahoma City Blue by ADT customer, alleges in the 36-page complaint that although consumers were made aware of a number of features of ADT’s in-home security cameras, they were not advised by the company that the cameras would record even without their security system being set to “armed” mode or the triggering of door and window alarms.

As a result, recordings were taken by ADT, unbeknownst to proposed class members, “at all times during the day and, upon information and belief, were viewed by unauthorized personnel within ADT” without customers’ consent, the lawsuit claims. Compounding matters, according to the plaintiff, is that proposed class members’ in-home security camera footage was subsequently sent by ADT to “additional unauthorized third parties” outside of the company. 

The lawsuit alleges certain ADT customers’ personal privacy and security have been violated as a result of the defendant’s “misrepresentations, negligence and failure to provide the security services that customers bargained for.” 

“The Security Camera footage is still in the hands of ADT, ADT employees and agents, and other unauthorized third parties who may now be distributing the videos and images (many of which depict Plaintiff and Class Members naked) on the internet,” the suit claims. “The errors and omissions described herein could have been prevented had ADT not been negligent in its failure to monitor its systems and address the various vulnerabilities in its security protocol.” 

With regard to the plaintiff, the lawsuit says the woman in March 2021 entered into an equipment lease contract with ADT, doing business as Blue by ADT, for the use of certain security system equipment, including alarm monitoring and basic camera service. Per the case, the plaintiff was assured by ADT that her in-home cameras would only begin to record in the event that her door and/or window alarms were triggered, and that the recording could only begin once the plaintiff obtained an alarm permit from her local municipality and notified ADT. 

Not long after the installation of the plaintiff’s ADT system, however, the woman, according to the lawsuit, received a telephone call from “a stranger in North Carolina” who relayed the “terrifying news” that security camera footage from her system was being sent to the individual without the plaintiff’s knowledge.

“The Security Camera Footage sent to the stranger in North Carolina, to Plaintiff’s horror and disbelief, included videos and images of Plaintiff in her most private moments within her home,” the lawsuit says. 

From the complaint: 

“Specifically, the caller stated, ‘I’m receiving your notifications from [ADT]. I’m a mother and I am concerned because I’m receiving footage of you in your home.’ She also shared with Plaintiff that when she had reached out to alert ADT of the gravity of the situation, ADT told her that it was up to this stranger to track Plaintiff down and let Plaintiff know what was happening: ‘Maybe she has a Facebook,’ ADT suggested. 

Interestingly, ADT did reach out to Plaintiff to let her know her bill payment was due.” 

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff’s ADT cameras, which were supposed to be recording only in the event that her door and/or window alarms were triggered, had instead been capturing video and pictures of the woman while she went about her normal routine. The footage, the case says, included video of the plaintiff’s three-year-old granddaughter, “exposing them both to the world at large.” 

According to the complaint, the North Carolina stranger began receiving the plaintiff’s security camera footage to her personal email only one day after the plaintiff had installed the cameras in her home and set up her account with ADT—before she had time to obtain the mandatory alarm permit, the case adds. The lawsuit alleges ADT, despite knowing of the apparent breach of the plaintiff’s privacy, “did not reach out to Plaintiff directly to update her on the status of these very serious issues or offer her relief from the nightmare she is now living.” Per the suit, one ADT sales representative, having seen the plaintiff’s story about the events alleged in the lawsuit on a local newscast, reached out to the news station that covered the woman’s story to apologize to her. 

“Plaintiff and the Class share the ADT representative’s hope that ADT will ‘make this right’ and resolve the very traumatic and damaging impact its system failure has had on their lives,” the lawsuit says, stating that an ADT executive did eventually reach out to the plaintiff after the woman’s legal counsel “visited with the ADT sales representative.” 

The lawsuit looks to represent all ADT customers throughout the United States whose security camera footage, including photos and videos, was accessed by an unauthorized party without the consent of the account holder.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.