Dale Baker, an Illinois resident filed a class action lawsuit against The ADT Corporation and ADT LLC (collectively, “ADT”) on November 9, 2014, alleging that ADT’s wireless security equipment is unencrypted and can be hacked. According to court documents, Baker filed a class action complaint against ADT, alleging that ADT’s wireless home security equipment and monitoring services are easily intercepted and interfered with by unauthorized third parties, and that ADT’s customers are far less safe than ADT leads them to believe.

The lawsuit recited ADT’s representations to its customers and potential customers that its wireless home security equipment and services are safe, reliable, and secure, and that ADT uses advanced and innovative technology to ensure such protection. However, according to court documents the lawsuit cites to a recent article in Forbes published July 23, 2014. The article documented how a person was able to hack into ADT’s unencrypted wireless systems using a $10 device that can easily be purchased on the open market from consumer electronics retailers. This device would allow a thief to remotely trigger or turn off the security systems, or monitor the homeowners’ activities in their homes. In the lawsuit, Baker alleged that his ADT wireless home security system was falsely triggered on two separate occasions, requiring the police to come to his home. Through a variety of brands, including ADT, ADT Pulse, and Companion Services, ADT provides electronic security, interactive home and business automation, and related monitoring services to approximately 6.5 million residential and small business customers in the United States and Canada.

According to an article published in The National Law Journal, November 24, 2014, in the complaint Baker alleges ADT’s “knowing misrepresentations and omissions” regarding the quality of its home security systems and the safety they provide, along with the company’s failure to security its wireless signals, are violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, along with damages. Baker’s legal counsel is, Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., and the case (at press time) was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago, with Court No. 14 cv 8988. As this story evolves, please visit www.SDMmag.com for future details.