US SAFETY Act Examined Amid Vegas Shooting Lawsuit

By Dan Gelinas, Published Jul 25, 2018, 12:30pm EDT

Creating an international controversy, MGM Resorts has sued shooting victims, despite or perhaps because the Las Vegas gunman used the MGM-owned Mandalay Bay to kill 58 people.

Unsurprisingly, this has engendered significant opposition and mockery:

However, MGM is using the US SAFETY Act of 2002 as a defense in their complaint. But what is the SAFETY Act and how does it apply to security users? In this note, we examine:

  • What does it take to become SAFETY Act certified?
  • How do the levels of certification differ?
  • What protection does it apply?
  • What security system manufacturers are certified?
  • Should buyers look to SAFETY Act certification as an important differentiator?

What ** ** *** **** **** ** ****?

*** ****** *** **** out ** * ****-*/** need *** ********** *** for ******** ****-****** *** security ********** ***** ******** without **** ** **********. Basically, *** ********** **** not **** ********* *** manufacture ************ *** **** up **** ********, ********** and ********* ** *** innovate *** *********** **** lives ******* **** *** afraid ** ***** **** if ***** ********** ** ********* to **** ** *** face ** * ********* act. 

***** ***** ** ** fee ** ****** ****** Act *********, ** ******** submitting ** *********** (*** **** *****), ***** ******** *** requests *** *********** **** the Office ** ****** *** Implementation (****) *** ******* insurance coverage *** *** ****-********* technology (****** ******* ** the **** ** ****** of ********* *** *** listed ** *** *****).

How ** *** ****** ** ************* ******?

***** ******** ********* ******** ******* *** *** SAFETY ***, **** ******* to ******, ***, **** and *****:

  • *** ** *** ********* technologies. *** ******** *** same ********** ** ********* but **** ****** *** seller *** ******** ** *** supply ***** ** *** ********* technology **** ** ******* the********** ********** *******. **** ***** **** ** long ** *** ******** explained *** ***** ** the government **** *** ********** ****'* ***** of, *** *** ****** was, **** *** ****** ***'* ** sued.
  • **** ** *** ********** status. **** ** *** lower **** **** ******* on * ************ ********* technology *** **** ****** of ********* **** *** Green **&* ***** *******. A ******* ******* ** be ****** *** *** first **** **** ******* Designation ****** ****** ******** Certified.
  • ***** ********* ************* *** Testing ********** ***********. ** is * *********** *** a ********** **** ** not ************ ********* ***, but ***** *******. ** may ** ******** ** beta ******* ** ** agency *** **** ************ used ****** * ********* event. *** **&* *********** limits ********* ** **** which ** ***** ** the ********* *** ********** seller ** ******** ** DHS ** *****.

********* ** *** ******** Bar ***********, ***** ** ********** over ******* ** *** this ********** ******* *** be ******** ** ***-********, non-governmental *****.

What Security Industry ********* *** ******?

*** ***** **** ** has ******** ****** *** ***** 1,000th ****** *** *******. The****** *** ******** ************ database***** *** ** ******. However, *** ********* ** IPVM **** **** ********* who *** ******** ****** to *** ******* ***** status ********.

********* *** **** ** the ********-********-******* ******** **** found:

  • ****
  • *****, ***.
  • ********
  • ***** *******, ***.
  • ******* ***.
  • ********* ************* (******* ********)
  • ***** ******* ***.
  • ****** *****, ***.
  • ******* ********** *********, *** 
  • ***** ******* *************, ***.
  • ****
  • ******** *******, ***.
  • ****é*** ***. *** ******** LLC
  • ******** ********** ********
  • ****** *********, ***.
  • **** ********** ******** *** and **** ********** **** & ******** ******, ***. 
  • ****** (****** ****** *** expired ********* ** *** SAFETY *** *******).
  • *** **** ****...

*** ******** *** *** **** *** a ******** **** **********, but ************* **** *** methods ** ********, ********* dictating response, ********** *** ********** security ******, ***. *** example:

*** ********** ** *** ****** *** Website:

Should ****** **** ** ****** *** ******* ** * **************? 

******** ** ********* **** **** ** make ** **** *** technology ********* ** ******** and ******* ********* **** more ***** ******* *** threat ** **********. ** solution ********* *** ********* about *** ********** ** a ********* *** ********* within *** ** ***** verticals, **** ******** *********** and **** ************* *** make *****. *** ********* protection ******* ** ******** in *** ****** ***** of *** ****** **********. 

*** *** **** ** putting **** ** *** test.

Is *** ***** ** *** *** *******?

***'* **** ******* ** ************ ******** ***********, *** ******* ***** to ******* ******** *** the ***** ** ******* Festival, * ****** ***-********* company, ****** ******* ** ***** complaint:

 

**** ** ** **** carry**** ********** *** ********* listings:

*** ****** ** ***** under *** ********** ********** Defense:

Dispute ************* ** ****** *** ** **** *****

*******,***** ** * ************ ******* *** ********** Contractor ******* ********** *** be ******** ** * non-military, ***-************ *******:

***** ** **** **** dispute ********* ******* ** not *** ***** ** Harvest ******** ******** **** qualifies *** *** ********** under *** ****** ***, since,********* ** ***, **** **** *** ******* whether ** *** *** mass ******** *** ** act ** *********:

*******, ** ********* *** ** ***** complaint, ***'**** ******** ******* *********** * *** **** leaves ****** ***** **** Vegas **** ******** ********* as *********.

******* ***' ********* **********:

*******, ** *** ***** hand, **** ** **** does ******* ** *********, that *** ******** *** done **** *** ******** Bay ****** *** *** the ********, ***** **** that *** *** ** not ********* ** *** SAFETY *** ************* ** CSC *** *** ******* *** the ******** *** *** the ******.

Outlook ****** ***

*** ******* ** **** case ***** **** * notable ****** ** *** the ****** *** *** be *******. *********, ** is ******* ********* ** a ** ********** ******* that ***** ** ** use ** **** ******** companies.

Comments (8)

Avatar

John Bredehoft

Bredemarket
07/27/18 04:55pm

Thank you for this analysis. I tend to look at this from a higher level - even if it is LEGALLY responsible for MGM Resorts to launch this lawsuit, it could have wider BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS. (Or it may not; I'm not sure how many Vegas vacationers will use this as a criterion to decide where they will stay.)

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to John Bredehoft | 07/27/18 04:57pm

At least from a marketing perspective, it's a terrible move. I do wonder what coordination or consideration was given to that when filing the suit.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #1

07/27/18 07:56pm

This may be an unpopular tactic, but the lawyers for MGM are doing their jobs - limiting their clients potential exposure to fault using existing statutes that are on the books.

To do anything less could be considered dereliction of duty on their part.

The problem here, as Dan points out in the OP, is that the existing statutes claimed as a defense are pretty ambiguous and completely untested in court.

My personal opinion is that plaintiffs will get next to nothing - even without SAFETY ACT protections. 

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 07/27/18 08:17pm

Ultimately the company makes the decision on what the lawyers should do - sue or not.

It may be worth it. It's a function of how much they believe they will lose x the probability they succeed with the case - the brand damage of the suit.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #1

07/27/18 08:25pm

"Ultimately the company makes the decision on what the lawyers should do - sue or not."

I agree, but, as you mentioned, this move is entirely based on potential loss of $$.

While the move could face potential backlash and hurt their brand financially, the exposure risk to thousands of lawsuits from victims appears to have been determined to be an even greater financial risk.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Jeffrey Hinckley

07/28/18 01:39am

Great article, Dan.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | 07/30/18 11:27am

Thank you, Jeff!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Steven Burman

07/30/18 03:53pm

I think the main thrust of folks suing MGM is that they let this guy bring suitcase after suitcase into his room and nobody ever questioned it. I'd bet the plaintiff's lawyers will move to have the SAFETY act defense declared irrelevant.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,098 reports and 941 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports