Vivint Countersues ADT Following Denial of Motion to Dismiss

In the wake of an ADT lawsuit from last year, Vivint Smart Home has countersued claiming ADT has been stealing customers.

 •

Vivint Smart Home is countersuing ADT after its motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the company last August was denied.

The original lawsuit alleged Vivint salespeople go to ADT customers’ homes, get them to sign Vivint contracts and install the company’s alarm systems in their homes under false pretenses.

Vivint filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that ADT failed to “plead special damages with particularity,”  “failed to plead damages for Defendants’ alleged interference with existing business relationships,” “failed to plead damages for Defendants’ alleged interference with Plaintiffs’ prospective contracts,” as well as several other arguments. However, a court disagreed with the claims and a judge ordered Vivint’s motion to be dismissed be denied.

Following the denial, Vivint denied ADT’s allegations and is now suing the company, claiming ADT is in fact the one stealing it’s competitor’s customers.

The countersuit states that ADT “trains its Sales Representatives to use false, deceptive, and defamatory practices in order to cause Vivint customers to switch to ADT” and “through its Sales Representatives, has engaged, and is still engaging, in a campaign to damage Vivint’s reputation, goodwill, and business relationships by, among other things, disseminating false, disparaging, and damaging information about Vivint, by unfairly competing with Vivint, and by interfering with Vivint’s contractual and other advantageous business relationships.”

It also claims “ADT, through its Sales Representatives, has engaged in a campaign to target and improperly solicit Vivint’s customers by making misrepresentations and statements disparaging Vivint to customers.”

Below are a few examples Vivint provided:

  • On information and belief, ADT, through its Sales Representatives, has improperly solicited, hundreds of Vivint customers by making material misrepresentations to Vivint customers about Vivint, its goods, services and reputation, and by otherwise utilizing unfair and deceptive sales practices.
  • In some instances, ADT falsely represents to Vivint customers that it is affiliated with Vivint and will “upgrade” or “update” the customer’s Vivint system, only to surreptitiously replace the Vivint system with an ADT system.
  • In some instances, ADT falsely represents to Vivint’s customers that Vivint is “going out of business” or has “filed for bankruptcy” in order to deceive Vivint’s customers into entering into contracts with ADT.
  • In some instances, ADT falsely represents to Vivint’s customers that it has “bought out” or “taken over” Vivint in order to deceive Vivint’s customers into entering into contracts with ADT.

Vivint also provided specific examples of incidents that included the names of ADT sales representatives and Vivint customers.

Per the countersuit, Vivint is requesting it be awarded for “damages caused by ADT’s false and misleading trade practices” and “defamation of Vivint,” and “disgorgement of ADT’s profits resulting from its unfair competition and infringement of a federally registered mark.”

This is just the latest suit of several between the two companies. In March, Vivint accused ADT of infringing on six of its U.S. patents related to security and smart home technology. In June, ADT hit Vivint with a patent infringement lawsuit of its own.


This article originally appeared on our sister publication Security Sales & Integration‘s website.