The ADT home security settlement is closed. A $16 million fund resolved claims that ADT sold wireless alarm systems vulnerable to signal interception and jamming, the court granted final approval on July 22, 2019, and checks went out to class members that September. The claim deadline was February 26, 2018, so new claims cannot be filed.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The consolidated case, Edenborough v. ADT LLC, centered on a specific flaw. ADT’s residential systems used unencrypted wireless signals between door and window sensors and the main control panel. Someone with an inexpensive software-defined radio could pick up those signals from hundreds of yards away, track when doors and windows opened, trigger false alarms, or jam the system so it would not sound during an actual break-in.
Plaintiffs argued ADT knew about the vulnerability and sold the systems without disclosing it. The claims included breach of contract and fraudulent omission. ADT denied wrongdoing and settled for $16 million.1Justia. Michael Edenborough v. ADT, LLC, No. 3:2016cv02233 – Document 114
Who Was Covered
The class included current and former ADT customers who signed a contract with ADT or an authorized dealer between November 13, 2009, and August 15, 2016, where the installed system included at least one wireless peripheral sensor. Customers whose accounts ADT acquired from a third party other than an ADT dealer were excluded.
Everyone in the class who did not formally opt out was bound by the release, whether or not they filed a claim.
What Claimants Received
The $16 million was a gross fund covering payments, attorney fees, litigation costs, administration, and service awards. Class counsel sought 25% of the net amount in fees and costs. Payments to class members who filed valid claims were tiered by contract date:
- $15 base payment for contracts signed between November 13, 2009, and July 23, 2014.
- $45 base payment for contracts signed between July 24, 2014, and August 15, 2016. The higher figure reflected evidence that ADT was more clearly aware of the vulnerability during the later period.
Both figures were subject to pro-rata adjustment up or down so the entire fund was distributed. Final per-person amounts depended on how many valid claims came in.1Justia. Michael Edenborough v. ADT, LLC, No. 3:2016cv02233 – Document 114
If You Never Cashed Your Check
Settlement checks typically expire 90 to 180 days after issue. A check mailed in September 2019 and never deposited would have gone back to the settlement administrator. In most class action settlements, uncashed funds are eventually redistributed to other claimants, sent to a cy pres recipient chosen by the court, or turned over to the state as unclaimed property. Which of those applies depends on the settlement agreement and state law.
If you think you were owed money and never received it, search your state’s unclaimed property database. Every state runs one and the search is free. Given the small per-person amounts here, though, many checks likely went undeposited without ever being reported anywhere you can search.
Whether the Vulnerability Still Exists
The lawsuit targeted a specific generation of ADT hardware that used unencrypted radio signals on frequencies easy to intercept and jam. ADT has since moved to DECT ULE, a wireless standard that operates on frequencies separate from the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands and uses encrypted signals. A standard Wi-Fi jammer will not knock out sensor communications on the newer systems.2ADT Newsroom. How ADT is Protecting Smart Homes From Wi-Fi Jamming
Current systems also include cellular backup. If Wi-Fi goes down, the base unit switches to cellular so sensors, motion detectors, and alarms keep working.2ADT Newsroom. How ADT is Protecting Smart Homes From Wi-Fi Jamming
If you are still using older ADT wireless equipment from the period covered by the lawsuit, contact ADT about upgrading. The newer hardware addresses the specific flaw that drove the litigation.