Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and the Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC Announce the Filing of a Class Action Suit on Behalf of Consumers of ADT Home Monitoring Services
WALNUT CREEK, Calif., March 4, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and the Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services ("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.
This class action is intended to redress ADT's wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees, the lynchpin of ADT's "never let them go" strategy. 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, 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 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. 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.
In addition, Plaintiffs seek redress for ADT's pattern of unilaterally increasing alarm monitoring fees while consumers are under contract for lesser fees. These 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. ADT relies on small boilerplate text neither signed nor highlighted for customers to claim its "right" to unilaterally increase fees.
If you have been charged or are subject to an ETF or rate increase by ADT and would like more information about this lawsuit, please contact L. Timothy Fisher by email at email@example.com or Jana Eisinger at Jana.Eisinger@gmail.com.
In addition, California residents who received restitution as a result of a settlement of similar charges against ADT made by the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, may still be entitled to recovery under this lawsuit. For additional information, please contact the individuals identified above.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
L. Timothy Fisher
1990 North California Blvd.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Law Office of Jana Eisinger, PLLC
11 West Prospect Avenue
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
SOURCE Bursor & Fisher, P.A.