Subscriber Discussion

Class Action Lawsuit Filed To Protect Alarm Customers…. From Their Alarm Supplier

LJ
Lee Jones
•Dec 02, 2017
Support Services Group

Several law firms have already filed a class-action lawsuit to prevent municipalities from fining the citizen alarm customer for “actions of others” during the chain of events that cause false alarms, a/k/a Unnecessary Police Response (UPR). Some of us knew it was coming, but didn’t know when. My firm has been alerting the parties in the “chain-of-events”, including alarm industry leadership, for over a decade that it is coming. And how it will be destructive to the $20 Billion market value. We offered pro bono guidance for mitigating the destruction, but most of the traditional leadership did not want to hear it. Their silence has aggravated the matter, to the detriment of their “followers”, including several thousand local alarm dealers. Of course, this can also have a negative (or positive) impact on hundreds of equipment suppliers, like IPVM members that supply products and services to the alarm industry. The bright side is the opportunity to restore the important public/private relationship. We don’t want monitored alarm systems to be treated like auto alarms.                    Any suggestions?

Source: Lee Jones; Support Services Group; leessg@att.net 

JH
John Honovich
•Dec 02, 2017
IPVM

Lee, do you have links to the court cases or names of the case? I'd like to read through the filings and post them here to help others.

LJ
Lee Jones
•Dec 02, 2017
Support Services Group

Not all the details this post, but a place for your research.

Attorneys Chris Corbitt and Kevin Lemley, Little Rock Ark.

News articles can be found via Google, Bing, etc.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Dec 02, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Is this (Class action challenges false alarm ordinance) the suit to which you are referring to?

Could this action, with maybe a few thousand in damages, really be  “destructive to $20 billion in market value”?

Seems a bit “alarmist” ;)

LJ
Lee Jones
•Dec 03, 2017
Support Services Group

Astute observation. However, this is not just a local matter between several customers and several municipalities. It can be industry wide, nationwide. Hundreds of municipalities have the same or similar legislation as referenced in Arkansas, serving millions of alarm customers. We believe the exposure in Ark, combined with reasonable success, will motivate more of the same, thus dilute the industry wide market value.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Dec 03, 2017
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Lee Jones

...will motivate more of the same, thus dilute the industry wide market value.

Sorry to be obtuse, but can you explain the thinking behind the success of the suits leading to the alarm industry destruction?

LJ
Lee Jones
•Dec 03, 2017
Support Services Group

Not destruction of the” industry”… destruction of the current “market value” of RMR, which is not the same.

My polished crystal ball suggests the “industry” would require a different business model, and could thrive, because there will always be a need for remote monitored alarm security. Many companies will resist change and end up like Kodak. Other security providers will change business models and add market value.

Our crystal ball will put us in deep controversy, but we share here. It suggests the following changes could re-set business models and market value. Most of the surviving legislation and business models are already time and court tested.

~ Remote monitored customers would be divided into two categories, “Deterrent” system and “Defensive” systems.

~ Deterrent systems (motion sensors) would receive little or no response by local police, like auto alarms. Includes most of the current 20 million customers. Market value diluted. Next gen private response could replace lost value.

~ Defensive systems would receive 911 type response when verified/witnessed. Small percent of existing customers, but majority of new customers. Market value same or greater.

~ Monitoring firms still determine when to call for help, therefore responsible for most fines/fees. Alarm site permits/registration can be abolished.

~ Public/Private relationship improved due to greater accountability of private security.

~ Legacy liability of “deceptive business practices” averted.

(list is bottomless pit so end here)

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions