![](https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ADT-Security-Services.jpg)
ADT Indoor Security Cameras
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that indoor security cameras record only when the system is activated without disclosing that ADT records videos at times when security systems are not activated and unauthorized…
March 2018: A federal judge stayed further consideration of the settlement pending the resolution of a case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, In Re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., that will resolve related issues.
October 2017: A federal judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 1, 2018. For more information, go to https://www.adthomesecuritysettlement.com/.
March 2017: The parties moved for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. According to the proposed settlement terms, class members may receive either a $15 or $45 cash award depending on when they entered into a contract with ADT. ADT also represented that it changed its disclosures in August 2016 to disclose the risk of hacking.
January 2017: The parties notified the Court that they reached a nationwide settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed, that would resolve the following related actions:
The parties also requested that the actions be stayed pending approval of the settlement.
March 2016: Two class-action lawsuits were filed against ADT Security Services for allegedly deceptively marketing its home security equipment and monitoring services as being safe and reliable and using innovative and advanced technology when such claims are not true. According to the complaints, ADT’s wireless signals are unencrypted and unauthenticated and, as a result, can be intercepted and interfered with by unauthorized third parties. To read the complaints, click on the case information below.
For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against ADT Security Services and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that indoor security cameras record only when the system is activated without disclosing that ADT records videos at times when security systems are not activated and unauthorized…
In May 2020, two class-action lawsuits were filed against ADT Security Services for allegedly misleadingly advertising that ADT Pulse provides a “whole new level of security and convenience” when, according…
In May 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed against ADT Security Services for allegedly deceptively advertising that its security systems have audio discriminators that detect breaking windows when, in reality,…
The metaverse is here.
It’s safe to say this ad makes some misleading claims.
Home security company sought to secure only positive reviews.
See the FTC’s track record when it comes to social media influencer cases.
FTC settles suit with company over charges of deceptive reviewers.