ADT's Top Dealer "The Defenders" Sued 20+ Times

By: Dan Gelinas, Published on May 07, 2019

ADT's largest authorized dealer, The Defenders, has been sued more than 20 times since 2012, IPVM has verified through analyzing legal records.

In February 2019, we examined how ADT And 'The Defenders' Silent About Massive Complaints and was tipped off to numerous lawsuits by ex-Defenders employees.

In this note, we examine:

  • 20 lawsuits reviewed (with a spreadsheet and links to complaints and answers from court records)
  • 3 key themes: Employee Grievances, Customer Grievances, Violations of the TCPA
  • How one plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction on ADT and Defenders to combat their "unconscionable contracts"
  • Most cases settled out of court
  • Response from the Defenders And ADT
  • ADT sued in half of these cases, as well

***'* ******* ********** ******,*** *********, *** **** **** more **** ** ***** since ****, **** *** verified ******* ********* ***** records.

** ******** ****, ** examined ****** *** '*** *********' Silent ***** ******* ********** *** *** ****** *** to ******** ******** ** ex-Defenders *********.

** **** ****, ** examine:

  • ** ******** ******** (**** a *********** *** ***** to ********** *** ******* from ***** *******)
  • * *** ******: ******** Grievances, ******** **********, ********** of *** ****
  • *** *** ********* ***** for * ********* ********** on *** *** ********* to ****** ***** "************** contracts"
  • **** ***** ******* *** of *****
  • ******** **** *** ********* And ***
  • *** **** ** **** of ***** *****, ** well

[***************]

**********

***** *** ********* ** certainly *** **** ***** than ***, **** *** certainly * **** ********* of ***'* ******** ** *** **** *** ****** report *********:

* *********** ******* ** our ******** ********* **** a ******* ****** ** such ***** *******, ********* an ********** ******* ******** that ****** * nine-year ******* ********* **** ** ** ******** **** *** ********* *** ************* **% ** *** our new accounts in 2017.

********, *** ********* ** tightly ******* *** *** relationship **** ***** ******* shows *** ******* **** in *** **** ***** a *******'* *** **** would ******** ** ******:

 

*** ********* ********* ******* of $***+ ******* *** 2018, ********* *** ***** **** ******

20 ********** ****** **** ****

**** ******** ** ********** ********:

**** **** **** * main ******:

  • ******** ********** ******* ** unfair ***, *****, *** wrongful ***********: * **********
  • ******** ********** ******* ** fraud, ******, ********** (********* allegedly ******* *****), ****** of ********, ********** *** racism, *** "************** *** oppressive" *********: * **********
  • ******** ********** ******* ** violations ** *** ********* ******** ********** *** (TCPA): * **********
  • ************, *** ***** ********* was ***** ** ******** competitor*** ********.

*** ** ** ****** at *** *** ********** since ** **** ********* lawsuits **** ******* ******* database *****, ********* *** "Defenders" *** "******* **** Home" ** *** *********. We *** *** ****** in *** ***** ***** systems **** ***** ******, for *******. ****, ***** have **** ***** ******* Defenders ***** ******** ********* pseudonyms. ** *** ********* ***** ** *** Security *** ************ ***:

********* ******** ******** ******* does ******** ***** ******** assumed *****, ********* "******* Your ****," "*********," "******** Direct," "**** ********," "**** Blue ***** *********," "**** Energy ***** ***," "**** Home," "****.****," "**** **** Security," "********," "**** ********" and "**** *********."

** *** ** ** looked **, * **** still **** ** *** time ** ******* *** one ** ***** *** due ** ***** ** the *** ** ***. All ***** ***** **** settled *** ** *****. 

How ** ****** ******* ****** ** *** ** ******** 

**** ******** **** ******** from ******* ** *** original********* ***** ****** ** our Facebook ****. *** ****** ****** a ******* **** ***** us **** ******** ***** filed ******* *** *** the ********* *** ***** and **** *** **********, as **** ** *** screenshot *****:

Most ***** ******* *** ** ***** & ********* **** *********

** *** ********* ***** that **** ****** ****** settled *** ** *****, most **** *********** ********* "**** *********," ***** ******* means **** * ********* settlement *** ******* *** *** ********* ** giving ** ***/*** ***** to *** *****. "******* prejudice" ***** *** ********* reserves *** ***** ** sue *****. **** *** case, * **** ********* complaint, *** *********** ********* without *********.

Customer ********** *******

**** *. *** *** et ** (***** ******)(***+):**************** ****'* ********* ** which *** *********** ******* pro ** ******* ********* (*** ******* **** Home) *** *** *** guilty ** ******, *****, and ********** ***** ** "unconscionable" ******** ** ***** contracts. *** **** *** $1.2 ******* *** ** injunction ******* **** ***** business *** ************ *** objectionable ******** ********, ** seen ** *** ********* excerpt **** **** **:

*** ********** **** ************* 6.5 ******* ********* ** the ****** ****** *** Canada. * ***** ****** or ******* ***** ** behalf ** **** ** these *.* ******* ********* of *** *** ******* Your **** ** ***********, inefficient *** ***** ****** burden *** ******** ******. Upon ***** ******* ** this *******, *** ********* requests *** ***** ***** enter ** ***** *** apermanent ********** *********** *** ********* *** ********** **** ******** ** *** *********, ********** *** ********** ******** ********* ********* ** **** ********* *** **** ******** **** ***** ********* ** ***** ******** ******** **** *** ************** *** ********** ***** *** **********. (emphasis added)

************* ** ***** ******** ****** *** ***********, ** seen ** *** ********* from **** *:

********** *** ***, */*/* ADT ******** ******** (“***”); and *********, ***. (*/*/* Defender ******** *******), */*/* Protect **** **** (“*********”), by *** ******* *********** counsel, ************ **** **** and ***** ********** ** Plaintiff’s (****** *******) ********* (“Complaint”).

***********, **** **** **** their ******** **** ***** and **** ******** ** the ******** *** ********* signed:

********** ******** **** *** applicable **** *** ********* in ********** *** **** owed ** *********, ***** duties *** *** ***** and ********** *********** ** written *********.

****'* ******* **** *** closed ********* **, ****, and *** **** *** ******** **** ** *** Circuit ***** ** *** County, ** ***** ** ** ***** ongoing. 

**** **** **** **** ADT *** *** ********* are ********** ***** **** every ******** **** ******* with * *** ********:

**** *** ********** *****. They **** *** ******** you **** ** **** to *** *** ** agree *** **** ** their *********, **** **** all **** **** .... They *** ********** ******** because ** *** ***** how ** **** ***** contracts. *** **** ****** I **** ** ** that *’* * ******.

********, **** **** *** ADT ******** *** ****** hard ** ******:

***** **** ********* **** wrong **** **** *** their ******** *** **** win. *** ******** ** unconscionable *** * ***** that ***** **** ** fraud. ****’** * ******** defendant *** *’** **** fighting **** *** * years, *** * ***’* find ****** ** **** me, ******* *** ** such * **** ************ to *****.

***** *. *** ***, and *********, ***., */*/* Protect **** ****:

*** ******** ************** ******* ********* ********** installed ***** *********** *** *********'* ******** where ** *** *** detect ***** **** * malfunctioning ***-************ **** ******** that ****** ****, ********** killing * ****** *** severely ******** *** ********:

*** **** *****/***** ******** installed ** *** ******** wall ** *** ***** residence *** *********** ********* by ********** *** *** and *********, ***. */*/* PROTECT **** ****, ** and ******* ***** ******, servants ***/** *********.

***********, *** ********* ****** that *** ********, *********, and ***** *********** ** the ****** “******** ****** by ******” ** *** Defendant’s “************, ************, *** negligence”:

*** ********* ********** *** resulting ******* ******** ** the ****** ********** *.*. and *.*., *** ********* decedent ******* *. ***** occurred ****** ** ****** of *** ************, ************ and ********** ** *** defendants, *** *** *** DEFENDERS, ***. */*/* ******* YOUR ****, ***** ******, servants ***/** *********

*** ********** ** ***** ******** ** *** ****** *** allegations, *** *******, *** they ***'* **** ****** information ** ****** ******* or *** *** *********** are ****:

*** ******* *****. ********* Defendans **** ****** ********* or *********** ********** ** form * ****** ** to *** ***** ** the *********** ********* ** the ********* ********* "***" of *********'* *********.

*** ******* ******. ********* Defendans **** ****** ********* or *********** ********** ** form * ****** ** to *** ***** ** the *********** ********* ** the ********* ********* "***" of *********'* *********.

*** ***** ********* *** filed ******** *, ****, and ** ** ***** 29th, **** ** ***** open.

Employee ********** *******

****** *. *********, ***. et **:

*** *********, ** ******* technician **** ** ****** at *********,****** **** ** ******** a ****** ******* ********* **** *** **** symptoms **** ***** **** made *********** ********* ** work *********. ** ********* time ***, ****** ** by * ******'* ****. His ********** ****** *** request *** ******** *** tech ****** ** **** immediately, ****** *** **** when *** **** ***** to ****** ******'* ****** as **** ** **** excerpt **** **** **:

**. ******* ****** **** knowledge ** *********’* ******* medical ********* *** ********** documentation, *** ******* ******** on *********’* ******** *********** Form **** ********* ***** called ** ******** ********** of *** *********, ****** and ******** ********** ********** against ********* ** *********** his ********** **** ******** for ********** *** *********** protected ****** ***** *** Family *** ******* ***** Act.

*** ********* **** ******* that *** ********** *** paid ***** **** *** his **** *** **** his *** **** ****** out ** ***** $**.**/****. The ********* ****** ** regularly ****** ~** *****/**** and **** ***** *** Fair ***** ******** *** he ** **** **** overtime.

********* ** ***** ******** simply **** *** ***********:

********* ********* ********* **, Defendant ****** *** *********’* allegations.

TCPA ********* ********** *******

*** **** ** * law ****** ** **** that ***** ** ******* unsolicited, ********* ***** *****. The *** ****** **** calls ******* ******** ******** consent *** ********* ******* unsolicited ***** **** ****** ****** rules, *** ***** *********** ** *** **** Registry. *** **** **** allows *********** ** *** a ******* **** **** not ****** *** **** guidelines.

******* *. ***, *** et **:

*** ********* ***** * TCPA ********* ********* ******* ADT *** ******** ********** ***** *** ****** the ********** **** *********** ********* ******* ****** (ATDS)**** * *********** ***/** artificial ***** ** **** multiple *********** ***** ***** to *** ********* ******* her ***** *******:

**. **** ** ***** call *** ** ** with *** *** *** content ** **** *** every *** ** **********’ calls ** ************* *** same: “**** ** ** important ******* **** ******* Your ****, **** ********** ADT ******."

*** ********* **** ******* how *** ********* ******* the **********' *********** ******:

**. ************, ********* ********* her ******** ********* ******* provider ** *** **** the ***** ** *******.

***********, *** ********* ******* that **** ****** *** Defendants' *********** ****** *** blocked, **** ***** ***** a ********* *********** ******:

**. ***, **** ****** the **-*** ****** *** elapsed, **********, ** ** apparent ****** ** ******* Plaintiff’s ******* ** ***** the *****, ******* ***** tactic *** ***** ******* calls ** ********* ***** a ********* *********** ****** than *** *** ********* had ********* ** *******.

*** ********** ** ***** answer ** ********* ** of *** ********* ***** to ****** *****, *** deny *** *********** ** the *********:

********* ****** **** **** telephone ***** **** ******** by ** ********** ***** others **** *********** ** voicemail. ****** ** ********* admitted ******, ********* ****** the *********** ** **** paragraph.

** ******** ** ********* 35, *** ********** *** they "**** ********** *********" to ****** ******* *** allegations ** **** ** not *** ** "****** ****":

********* ***** ********** ********* or *********** ** **** a ****** ** ** the ***** ** *** allegations ** **** ********* and, ***********, ****** **** allegations.

*** ********** ****** **** the **** ********* ***** using * ********* *********** number:

********* ****** **** *********.

Response **** *** *********

********* **** *** ***** not ******* ** *** suits:

** *** ***** ** ********* *** the **** **** *** team ******** ***** *** to **** ******** ****** the ******* ****. 

** ************ ******* ** ********* **** not ******* ******** ** settled ** ******* ********** or ******.

Response **** ***

*** **** *** ****** to ***, ******* **** we ***** **** ** "work **** ********* ** this."

ADT **** ** **** ** ***** *****

*** ** ***** ** a **-********* ** ** of *** ** ******** we ****** **. 

Comments (2)

*** * *** ** ADT, *** ** *** several ******* **** **** set ** **** ** our ****. ** ********** goes **** ** *** as ****. *** **** has *******.

****, *** ********* **** President ** **********, *** Young, *** ******** ********* President ** *** ******** Alarm *********** ***** ** TMA-The ********** *********** (******** CSAA). ******* ******* *** a ****** ******** ** ADT **** * ***** of ** **** .. “….we **** **** ***** Associations ** ** *** dirty ****…”. **** *** we ****** *** ** his/their *** **** ****?

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...
Alarm Veteran "Demands A Criminal Investigation" Of UL on Oct 18, 2019
The Interceptor's Project pressure against UL continues to rise. Following Keith Jentoft's allegation that "UL Has Blood On Their Hands", Jentoft...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
Nortek and SDS Fight Over Failed Settlement on Jun 05, 2019
Distributor SDS said they reached a deal with Nortek but Nortek says no settlement was reached and the suit is still on. In this post, based on...
NJ Law Requires Apprenticeship For Public Works Integrators on May 24, 2019
Few integrators do a formal apprenticeship program. However, now a NJ law is requiring any integrator on public works projects (such as state...
Security / Privacy Journalist Sam Pfeifle Interview on May 24, 2019
Sam Pfeifle is best known as the outspoken former Editor of Security Systems News. After that, he was publications director at the International...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...

Most Recent Industry Reports

FLIR New Coronavirus Prioritized Temperature Screening Camera Examined on Apr 03, 2020
FLIR has announced a new series of thermal cameras "prioritized for entities working to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 virus", the A400/A700...
ADI Branch Burglary on Apr 03, 2020
A security systems distributor branch is an odd target for burglary but that happened this week at ADI's Memphis location. Vehicle Smash &...
Hikvision And Dahua Now Blocked From Conforming ONVIF Products on Apr 03, 2020
Dahua and Hikvision, sanctioned for human rights abuses, are now blocked from submitting products for ONVIF conformance, a blow to the mega China...
YCombinator AI Startup Visual One Tested on Apr 02, 2020
Startup Visual One, backed by Silicon Valley's powerful Y Combinator, aims to be "Your 24/7 Watchman" with advanced analytics and object...
Free IPVM Memberships For The Unemployed on Apr 02, 2020
IPVM is giving 3-month free memberships (regular price $99) for the unemployed, no questions asked. To get it, just contact us, your request...
Dahua Faked Coronavirus Camera Marketing on Apr 01, 2020
Dahua has conducted a coronavirus camera global marketing campaign centered around a faked detection. Now, Dahua has expanded this to the USA,...
Video Surveillance Trends 101 on Apr 01, 2020
This report examines major industry factors and how they could impact video surveillance in the next 5 - 10 years. This is part of our Video...
USA's Seek Scan Thermal Temperature System Examined on Apr 01, 2020
This US company, Seek, located down the road from FLIR and founded by former FLIR employees is offering a thermal temperature system for the...
Terrible Convergint Coronavirus Thermal Camera Recommendation on Apr 01, 2020
A week after Convergint disclosed falling revenue, pay and job cuts, Convergint is touting 'extensive research' that is either grossly incompetent...
The IPVM New Products Online Show April 2020 Opens With 40+ Manufacturers on Mar 31, 2020
IPVM is excited to announce the first New Products Online show, with 40+ manufacturers, to be held April 14 to the 16th, free to IPVM members,...