Jhaveri v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 2012 WL 843315 (C.D.Cal.)
The Jhaveris contracted with ADT for home security
services. ADT promised to notify them of
any alarm activation at their home, and if ADT could not reach them, ADT would
immediately dispatch the police and ADT Security Services patrol. ADT received an alarm notification in December
2010, and dispatched a patrol officer to investigate. The patrol officer reported that there was no
problem despite the presence of stacked furniture and broken windows, and only
did a perimeter check even though the alarm was triggered inside the master
bedroom closet. ADT didn’t contact the police and failed to notify the Jhaveris
by cell phone of the alarm activation as protocol required. The Jhaveris alleged that, as the result of
this deficient response, they suffered millions of dollars in damages.
The court dismissed a bunch of counts; I’ll only discuss the
false advertising claims under state law. The allegations of false advertising were
based on ads claiming that ADT is the “# 1 security company in America,” and
would help Plaintiffs “protect [their] home and family, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week”; that ADT was “the electronic security industry's undisputed leader and
standard bearer”; and that ADT's “well deserved reputation for excellence” was
grounded upon its ability to provide “the very best in systems and services
to all [their] valued customers.” These
statements were all puffery: “generalized statements of superiority upon which
no reasonable consumer would rely.” The
24-hour, 7-day claim was a non-actionable future promise. (This last can’t really be true: most ad
claims are promises of future performance, and those that aren’t explicitly so
are implicitly, since very few people want to buy a product that was good but is now bad.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment