ADT Sued in Class Action in CA / Comments on Guns in the Workplace from March 13, 2013 Article
March 16, 2013
***********************
Class actions used to be reserved for drug companies with deep pockets whose products caused horrific injury to class participants. With the proliferation of litigation almost any company that lawyers think can respond to monetary damages become a target, and ADT fits that description. As you read below keep in mind at least two things. First, the allegations are just that, allegations, and nothing has been proved yet. There may be no wrongdoing. Second, you're not ADT. Whatever problems ADT has does not mean they will filter down to you. Even if ADT ends up settling or goes the distance and loses in court, there may not be consequences for you unless you have decided to copy and use ADT's contract and mirror its business practices and model. My best suggestion to you is use the Standard Form Contracts and conform your business model to the contract provisions.
*************
A class action lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court in California against ADT on behalf of all consumers who purchased ADT home monitoring services. The proposed class consists of two groups of consumers: (1) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT who have been charged an early termination fee or are subject to being charged an early termination fee (also called an Early Termination Fee or Early Cancellation Fee, collectively "ETF", and comprising the "ETF class"); and (2) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT whose rates were increased or are subject to increase by ADT without prior notice while in the initial contract period or during subsequent contractual extensions.
According to the press release the class action is intended to redress ADT's alleged wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees, the lynchpin of ADT's "never let them go" strategy. The theory of one cause of action is that early termination fees are unlawful penalties used simply as an anti-competitive device and do not compensate ADT for any true costs of breach. These penalties, according to the class action attorneys. which are unilaterally imposed by ADT - even when ADT fails to perform the services promised - also violate the consumer protection statutes of California and Illinois and similar laws nationwide. The class action attorneys reason that the early termination penalty is extracted under circumstances which cannot be justified, when ADT has failed to perform the very services that form the basis of ADT's obligation and that the penalty is also extracted from customers who contracted with ADT to simply monitor a system that was previously installed, requiring no equipment to be installed and resulting in a windfall to ADT upon termination. By charging the early termination fee ADT gets paid for years of monitoring without doing any monitoring to earn those fees.
Also. damages are sought ADT's alleged pattern of unilaterally increasing alarm monitoring fees while consumers are under contract for lesser fees, which increases are implemented without adequate prior notice and without providing the appropriate and required disclosures necessary to ensure that customers consent to these increases in advance and durther that ADT relies on small boilerplate text neither signed nor highlighted for customers to claim its "right" to unilaterally increase fees.
This class action was no doubt encouraged by the recent settlement of similar charges against ADT made by the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office.
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Comments on Guns in the Workplace from March 13, 2013 Article
*****************************************************************************************************************************
Ken
With 64 lawsuits against the dirtbag Cuomo and his safe act, I do believe it will be repealed.....
After all, having in ones possession a "razor" and/or a "sandbag" is now a class d misdemeanor....
And WTF cops can only carry 7 rounds.... What a joke! and he wants to run in 2016, NOT!
Mike
*******************
Ken
I find this subject very interesting, particularly with us in the security industry. Even so, I think you might find polar opposites on opinion, and that is why I am writing to you, to see what are industry
thinks and does.
I am in a unique situation where I can now carry a firearm country wide. I am a retired police officer and maintain my qualifications under NJ state law. Federal law now allows us to carry a concealed weapon most anywhere, unless prohibited by state law.
I have some customers in some very bad neighborhoods, and as such, would not venture there for either a service call or estimate without my weapon. And it's not only for my safety, but the safety of others. Many people do not realize how many crimes are prevented or how many criminals are captured by retired police officers. The media has controlled us into political correctness to a fault. The stories of people around the country that have saved themselves or others from harm using their legally owned weapons are mostly suppressed by the media.
In any event, we, in the security industry I believe, should be of a more pro-gun environment, as it is the very nature of our business, protecting people. I would find it very odd that any security company in the country would limit or prevent legally licensed concealed carry permit holders in or around their premise. The basic idea of the state and national law for retired police officers to continue to carry, was to give more people the ability to maintain the public peace, especially with people that were trained professionals most of their lives.
I also see this extended to the general public, as long as they are legally licensed to carry and maintain some proficiency according to their state laws. From experience, I was assisted many times by people passing by me and helped me perform my duties as a police officer. One person actually helped me handcuff a criminal fleeing the scene as I was down on the ground fighting with him. I shook his hand, and he disappeared into the night. I might have owed that person my life.
But the story is told here to demonstrate the true nature of most people who would help one another when in need. I believe that the good and sane people out number the bad ones, not the other way around as the media would portray. My hat goes off to the people who helped me in
performing my duties, and may have saved my life. My neighbor once helped me with a difficult task in my back yard and I offered to pay him for his time. He refused payment and said to me, "Isn't that what neighbors do?" I smiled and nodded thinking, I have a great neighbor.
Holger Skurbe
H.E.S. Electronics
***********************
Ken;
I think this whole matter of discussing "Guns in the workplace" is a waste of time. This has nothing to do the 2nd Amendment. OK so you can post a sign at your front door saying "No Firearms Allowed Inside." That's GREAT. But criminals don't give a crap about your signs. What enabled that cretin in Aurora, CO to shoot as many people as he did, was because that theater was in a "Gun Free" zone. The concealed carry laws in CO are very "unrestrictive." I hesitate to use the term liberal because of the negative connotation that attaches to that word. But people in CO (the law abiding ones anyway) observed that request and left their guns home that night. I hear all these clowns that said "But the guy was wearing body armor." Did you ever talk to someone who was shot wearing body armor? OK so the bullet doesn't enter your body, but it still feels like you have been hit with a bat, and it was Mark McGuire who was swinging it. Even with full body armor, a bullet will break ribs and other bones. If someone took cover and just squeezed off 2 or 3 rounds at that monster, he would have turned tail and run. I digress.
Being a retired law enforcement officer, I am legally licensed to carry a firearm. The only two places that I cannot carry a concealed weapon, is on an airplane, and in the public schools. I consider myself extremely fortunate that I got through my 25 year law enforcement career without ever having to shoot anyone or being shot myself. But let me ask you this: If police officers were allowed to carry a firearms on commercial airliners and say there were one or two cops on one of the four hijacked airliners on 9/11/01, don't you think the outcome may have been different? It brings to mind the line Sean Connery used in the movie "The Untouchables," when he mocked the guy for bringing a "knife to a gunfight." I know there are all sorts of safety reasons why it isn't a good idea to discharge a weapon on a passenger jet, but could the outcome have been any worse? I revert back to the old saying "An armed society is a polite society."
John from New Jersey
********************
Ken
In Virginia the DCJS rules prohibit and electronic security personal from carrying any firearm while working.
Michael D
**********************************************************************************************************************************
TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR EMAIL Ken@Kirschenbaumesq.com. Most comments and questions get circulated.
******************************************************************************************************************************