fbpx

Alder Holdings and Alarm Protection Technology Lie to Gain Customers Class Action

There are many ways to take customers away from rivals, but fraud should not be one of them. The complaint for this class action claims that Alarm Protection Technology, LLC (APT) makes a practice of lying to customers of other companies in order to get them to switch to APT services.

The class for this action is all security and alarm companies in the US from whom defendants fraudulently acquired customers, as described in the complaint, during the class period. An injunctive relief class has also been proposed.

APT is not the only defendant named in this case, but that’s because its identity seems to be fluid. The other defendant, Alder Holdings, LLC, is portrayed by the complaint as simply the alter ego of APT. “All of APT’s customer service employees now work for Alder. All of APT’s information technology employees now work for Alder. All of APT’s executive staff now works for Alder. Alder uses the same office space that APT used. Alder manages APT’s accounts without any written agreement between the two…”

In fact, the complaint alleges that “78 different ‘Alarm Protection’ entities were created so that if one entity was sued, that entity could transfer all of its assets to another entity prior to claiming bankruptcy.” (Most people would consider this not a good sign.)

Plaintiff Security Systems, Inc. (SSI) claims that APT fraudulently took over at least 38 of its customer accounts, in eight different states. Some of these previous customers told SSI that APT told them falsehoods about SSI. For example, it said that SSI had gone out of business, that it had assigned their accounts to APT, that SSI could no longer properly monitor their alarms, or that SSI no longer served their area. At times, APT offered to pay SSI customers so get them to break their contracts with SSI.

When SSI confronted APT and demanded that it stop its fraudulent behavior, APT rejected the demands and continued to lie to SSI customers.

SSI is not the only company that has had trouble with APT. A lawsuit filed in Alaska—Security Alarm Fin. Enterprises, LLP v. Alarm Protection Tech, LLC, et al., No. 3:13-cv-00102 ECF No.682 (D. Alaska March 23, 2017—resulted in a $1.4 million jury verdict against APT for similar behavior.

The complaint alleges violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Utah Unfair Competition Common Law, Injurious Falsehood, and Slander, among other things.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Fraud

Most Recent Case Event

Alder Holdings and Alarm Protection Technology Lie to Gain Customers Complaint

August 24, 2018

There are many ways to take customers away from rivals, but fraud should not be one of them. The complaint for this class action claims that Alarm Protection Technology, LLC (APT) makes a practice of lying to customers of other companies in order to get them to switch to APT services. For example, it said that SSI had gone out of business, that it had assigned their accounts to APT, that SSI could no longer properly monitor their alarms, or that SSI no longer served their area.

alarm_protection_company_complaint.pdf

Case Event History

Alder Holdings and Alarm Protection Technology Lie to Gain Customers Complaint

August 24, 2018

There are many ways to take customers away from rivals, but fraud should not be one of them. The complaint for this class action claims that Alarm Protection Technology, LLC (APT) makes a practice of lying to customers of other companies in order to get them to switch to APT services. For example, it said that SSI had gone out of business, that it had assigned their accounts to APT, that SSI could no longer properly monitor their alarms, or that SSI no longer served their area.

alarm_protection_company_complaint.pdf
Tags: Deceptive Business Practices, Fraud