Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—DSC: ADT Did Not Misrepresent Fire Alarm Policies and Procedures , (Apr 30, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A home owner could not state a South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claim against ADT Security Services for allegedly misrepresenting its policies and procedures in the event of a home fire, according to the federal district court in Charleston (Bahringer v. ADT Security Services, Inc.,April 29, 2013, Norton, D.).

In his UTPA claim, the home owner alleged that (1) ADT deceptively advertised that it notified the fire department as soon as the smoke detectors signal an alarm and (2) the discrepancy between the advertising and the terms of ADT’s agreement was deceptive. The home owner was injured in a fire that partially destroyed his home after his ADT-monitored smoke detectors failed to alert either him or ADT to the fire.

The UTPA prohibits unlawful trade practices that cause actual, ascertainable damages and have an adverse impact on the public. Unlawful trade practices are offensive to public policy or are immoral, unethical, or oppressive. Actions that have an impact on the public interest are those that could be repeated.

ADT’s marketing materials were not misleading, according to the court. The language did not discuss how reliable the alarms were or guarantee that its fire protection services were infallible.

The home owner also failed to show that ADT engaged in unlawful trade practices, according to the court. ADT’s limit on liability to $500 was not unfair or deceptive. The contract stated that its fire alarm system was not 100% effective and may fail during a fire.

The case is No. 2:12-cv-1473-DCN.

Attorneys: Brooks Roberts Fudenberg (Brooks R. Fudenberg Law Office) for Thomas Bahringer. Diane Summers Clarke, II (Barnwell Whaley Patterson and Helms) for ADT Security Services, Inc.

Companies: ADT Security Services, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices SouthCarolinaNews