1 

4841-7327-5086

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No. 20-23391-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN 

ADT LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Vivint Smart Home, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiffs ADT LLC and The ADT Security Corporation (together “ADT”), bring this 

action for damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants Vivint 

Smart Home, Inc. f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp. and Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. 

f/k/a Vivint Smart Home Inc. (together “Vivint”), and in support allege as follows: 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

1. This case is about Vivint’s false and misleading sales practices on the doorsteps 

and in the homes of hundreds—if not thousands—of ADT customers across the country. 

Through well-rehearsed sales tactics, Vivint’s sales representatives have misled scores of ADT 

customers into believing, among other things: (1) that the Vivint agent is there to simply 

“update” or “upgrade” the ADT customer’s equipment, when in reality he or she is switching 

out the ADT system for Vivint; (2) that ADT has been bought out or is going out of business 

and that Vivint is taking over ADT accounts; and (3) that Vivint is a subcontractor, installer 

or is otherwise affiliated with or acting on behalf of ADT. These affiliation misrepresentations 

allow Vivint to freeride on the goodwill of ADT, damage ADT’s name, and lead ADT’s 

customers to do business with Vivint under false pretenses, typically resulting in the ADT 

customer becoming bound into a multi-year contract with Vivint valued in the thousands of 

dollars that is impossible for the customer to extricate him or herself from once the customer 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 19
2 

4841-7327-5086

has finally become aware of Vivint’s deception. These practices violate Section 43(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the related common law of unfair competition. ADT 

seeks damages to remedy its loss of numerous customers (some known, some unknown) and 

the disruption of thousands of others since December 20, 2017; ADT’s injuries to its goodwill 

and reputation; ADT’s lost royalties from Vivint’s unauthorized use of the ADT brand; 

Vivint’s profits from its ill-gotten gains, ADT’s attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages to 

punish and deter Vivint from continuing to engage in its intentional conduct. 

2. Vivint is no stranger to these issues. On December 20, 2017, Vivint, Inc. 

(defendants’ predecessor entity) and ADT settled a prior lawsuit brought by ADT against 

Vivint in this Court involving the exact same conduct by Vivint’s sales agents: ADT LLC & 

ADT US Holdings, Inc. v. Vivint, Inc., No. 9:17-cv-80432-DMM/DLB (S.D. Fla.). In that case, 

ADT presented evidence of over 900 reports of deceptive and misleading sales conduct over 

a four-year period (2013 to 2017). On the third day of trial, Vivint agreed to pay $10 Million 

to resolve those claims in exchange for a release and non-admission of liability. The settlement 

was supposed to end Vivint’s practice of false and deceptive sales conduct once and for all. 

3. It did not. In the years since, Vivint’s conduct has continued unabated, and in 

some ways its behavior has grown even more reprehensible. ADT has already received over 

250 reports of additional deceptive sales encounters by Vivint representatives from ADT 

customers throughout the United States, with over a dozen occurring in the state of Florida. 

In one highly representative encounter caught on a customer’s Ring® home video camera, a 

Vivint Regional Manager (who is also mentoring a Vivint trainee) makes a series of false and 

misleading representations to homeowners and refuses to leave their doorstep until the 

interaction turns confrontational. Within that short interaction, the Vivint Regional Manager 

made numerous misleading, deceptive and/or outright false statements, such as stating that: 

(1) he was sent by the police; (2) he was not selling anything and instead was only there to 

upgrade their equipment; and (3) ADT had been bought out and that was the reason for the 

visit. The Regional Manager became increasingly abrasive with the homeowner throughout 

the interaction until the homeowner became agitated and came outside to ensure that the 

Regional Manager and the trainee left the homeowner’s property. 

4. Vivint’s deceptive sales practices and claims of affiliation with ADT 

highlighted in this encounter are not atypical of the approximate 250 other complaints ADT 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 19
3 

4841-7327-5086

has received from its customers about Vivint since December 20, 2017, which ADT 

incorporates by reference as if set forth fully herein. See Exhibit 1, Spreadsheet of Deceptive 

Sales Reports about Vivint from ADT Customers from December 20, 2017 to August 12, 

2020. Vivint’s conduct has even continued during the Covid-19 global pandemic. Indeed, 

within the last two months, customers have complained that Vivint salesmen continue to 

commit deceptive sales practices on customers’ doorsteps without regard to no-solicitation 

signs or the appropriate health precautions needed to protect homeowners during these 

uncertain times. 

5. Pandemic or not, there is no indication Vivint intends to stop its deceptive sales 

practices, and ADT anticipates by the time of trial the volume of reports about deceptive sales 

practices by Vivint will be even more numerous. 

6. Ironically, Vivint recognizes the severe damage its conduct causes because 

Vivint has sued other competitors for deceptive sales tactics against Vivint’s customers. Vivint 

has filed dozens of separate lawsuits against competitors and competitors’ sales 

representatives in the past several years premised on these exact same claims. Vivint has 

established a “slam” department—the industry term for the type of deceptive sales practices 

and misrepresentations of affiliation at issue here—to investigate and prosecute incidents that 

occur to Vivint customers. Thus, hypocritically, Vivint takes deceptive sales practices 

seriously only when they impact Vivint customers, yet refuses to correct the longstanding 

history of deceptive sales conduct within its sales force. 

7. Vivint also recognizes that the number of reported incidents about deceptive 

sales practices is only the tip of the iceberg of customers actually subject to deceptive sales. 

For every report of a deceptive sales incident, there are many more that go unreported—even 

if the customer ultimately cancels ADT’s services or becomes so frustrated with ADT because 

of Vivint’s practices that the customer stops paying for any alarm system. Indeed, in a past 

Lanham Act action Vivint brought against another competitor in the alarm industry, Vivint 

represented to the District of Utah that the fact that only 4% of deceived customers take the 

time to complain is so uncontroversial that it is capable of judicial notice. Vivint internal 

documents regarding consumer behavior confirm this “tip of the iceberg” concept. 

8. ADT has been fighting this problem for many years. The conduct not only 

harms ADT and its customers, it harms the entire industry by leading the consuming public 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 19
4 

4841-7327-5086

to distrust home alarm providers—companies which make their keep by instilling a sense of 

security and trust in their customers. 

9. Vivint’s engrained culture of deceptive sales practices is not unique to ADT 

customers. Other competitors and at least a dozen states’ attorneys general have brought 

actions against Vivint for this exact same behavior over the past decade. To date, however, 

no punishment or financial consequence has been sufficient to stop Vivint from defrauding 

customers throughout the United States. 

10. Because all regulatory and industry efforts—including ADT’s prior lawsuit—

have failed to curb Vivint’s deceptive sales tactics, ADT seeks an award of punitive damages 

in an amount that will make it financially unprofitable for Vivint to continue this conduct. 

PARTIES 

11. Plaintiff The ADT Security Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business at 1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. The ADT 

Security Corporation is a holding company that owns, inter alia, all ADT trademarks, 

including without limitation 21 ADT live word trademarks featuring the letters “A – D – T,” 

registered in the United States Patent & Trademark Office that bear the registration numbers 

3251836, 3352491, 710708, 710507, 3515266, 3511263, 3445423, 3909665, 3485321, 

3421797, 1034716, 838956, 803247, 846966, 3348663, 3253804, 3445420, 3991449, 3335239, 

3335298, and 3427081 (“ADT Trademarks”). The ADT Security Corporation is ultimately 

wholly owned by ADT Inc., a Delaware corporation whose common stock is traded on the 

New York Stock Exchange. 

12. Plaintiff ADT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal 

place of business at 1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. ADT LLC is an 

operating company that runs the ADT alarm services business in the United States. ADT 

LLC uses the ADT Trademarks under license from The ADT Security Corporation. ADT 

LLC is owned by The ADT Security Corporation. 

13. Defendant Vivint Smart Home, Inc., formerly known as Mosaic Acquisition 

Corp., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 4931 North 

300 West, Provo Utah 84604. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.) 

was created on January 17, 2020 pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated 

September 15, 2019, by and among Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 4 of 19
5 

4841-7327-5086

Corp.), Maiden Merger Sub, Inc., and Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Vivint Smart 

Home, Inc.). Vivint Smart Home, Inc.’s (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.) registered agent 

for service of process is The Corporate Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center 2109 

Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. 

14. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.) is listed on the New 

York Stock exchange and currently has a market capitalization of $3.6 billion. 

15. On information and belief, following the January 17, 2020 merger, Defendant 

Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.) has assumed liability or is 

otherwise liable as a successor for the tortious conduct committed by Legacy Vivint Smart 

Home, Inc. (formerly known as Vivint Smart Home, Inc.) and/or its employees prior to the 

merger. 

16. On information and belief, following the January 17, 2020 merger, employees 

of Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (formerly known as Vivint Smart Home, Inc.) became 

employees of Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (formerly known as Mosaic Acquisition Corp.). 

17. Defendant Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc., formerly known as Vivint Smart 

Home, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 4931 

North 300 West, Provo Utah 84604. On January 17, 2020 pursuant to an Agreement and 

Plan of Merger dated September 15, 2019, Legacy Vivint Smart Home Inc. (f/k/a Vivint 

Smart Home, Inc.) merged into Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.). 

Upon information and belief, until the January 17, 2020 merger with Vivint Smart Home, 

Inc. (f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.), Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Vivint Smart 

Home, Inc.) employed the Vivint sales persons who generated and sold new accounts on 

behalf of Vivint. Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (f/k/a Vivint Smart Home, Inc.)’s 

registered agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, 

Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 1331 of Title 28 

because it presents a federal question under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. 

19. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims also asserted 

in this action pursuant to Section 1367(a) of Title 28. 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 5 of 19
6 

4841-7327-5086

20. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 1391(b) of Title 28 because a 

substantial number of the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this Complaint occurred 

in this District and because Vivint is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction in this District 

for committing tortious conduct purposefully directed at this District as described in Exhibit 

1 and in this Complaint. 

OTHER FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

21. ADT, founded in 1874, is the oldest, largest, and best-known provider of 

electronic security, automation and smart home services and equipment for homes and 

businesses in the United States. 

22. ADT provides security, automation, and smart-home services and equipment 

nationwide and is engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of the Lanham Act. 

23. ADT’s name and trademarks are registered with the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

24. As a Florida resident, ADT is injured in Florida by Vivint’s tortious activities. 

25. Vivint began selling and installing alarm systems under the name APX Alarm 

Security Solutions in 1999. APX rebranded itself as “Vivint” in 2011. 

26. Today, Vivint operates in most states, including Florida. Vivint is registered to 

do business in Florida with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. A 

substantial fraction of the violations that form the basis of this complaint occurred in Florida. 

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Vivint misled Florida consumers and engaged in the 

deceptive sales practices that are the subject of this civil action. 

27. Vivint and ADT are direct competitors in the security systems, automation and 

smart home markets. ADT and Vivint market and sell substantially similar goods made by 

the same suppliers through the same channels to the same target markets of residential 

consumers. The companies also provide substantially similar security monitoring services to 

their respective customers. ADT operates in each of the states in which Vivint sells and installs 

alarm systems. 

28. Vivint’s sales agents target ADT customers in various ways, often by seeking 

houses with the distinctive ADT yard sign that ADT’s customers post on their premises to 

deter burglars and trespassers. 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 6 of 19
7 

4841-7327-5086

29. The complaints received by ADT show that Vivint’s sales agents many times 

intentionally target older customers. Many complaining ADT customers are over the age of 

65, are infirm, or have diminished mental capacities. 

30. Vivint’s sales agents solicit ADT’s customers in unannounced “cold” door-todoor sales visits to the customers’ homes. At the beginning of these visits, and often 

throughout the sales encounter, the agents use deceptive sales pitches that are intended to 

mislead (and that do mislead) ADT’s customers into believing that Vivint represents ADT, or 

that Vivint is affiliated with ADT, or that they are visiting at ADT’s direction, or that they 

work for the companies that made the ADT alarm equipment installed in the customers’ 

homes, or that ADT has otherwise blessed Vivint to work on ADT’s behalf. 

31. Vivint’s agents use these pitches to induce ADT customers to believe that they 

have an existing business relationship with the agents, to trust them, and to grant the agents 

entry into their homes. Once inside, having won the customers’ trust by this deception, the 

agents lead the customers to sign Vivint contracts and install Vivint alarm systems in the often 

mistaken belief that they are receiving new ADT equipment from ADT, an ADT affiliate, or 

an ADT successor, or that Vivint is assuming the ADT account, or that the customer has no 

choice but to permit the transaction to go forward if he or she wishes to continue to have 

operational alarm-monitoring services. 

32. Vivint’s deceptive practices injure ADT by causing ADT’s customers to listen 

to their deceptive sales pitches, allow Vivint’s agents entry to their homes under false 

pretenses, sign Vivint contracts, uninstall their ADT alarm systems, replace these systems 

with Vivint’s equipment, and terminate the customers’ ADT contracts. 

33. Vivint, by falsely claiming an affiliation with ADT in its sales to consumers, 

further injures ADT by taking for itself the essential benefit of being an ADT affiliate without 

paying any royalty or other consideration to ADT for the claim of affiliation. This is a benefit 

for which hundreds of licensed ADT dealers pay substantial financial consideration to ADT. 

Vivint pays nothing by using ADT’s name and brand for the benefit of Vivint, and Vivint does 

not abide by ADT’s dealer guidelines in so misappropriating a right of affiliation with ADT. 

34. Vivint’s false sales pitches also injure ADT’s goodwill and reputation. Some 

customers are left with the false belief that ADT is out of business, that ADT has been 

acquired, that their ADT alarm systems are outdated and vulnerable to burglars, or that Vivint 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 7 of 19
8 

4841-7327-5086

has taken over ADT accounts. Others mistakenly assume that Vivint had access to the private 

data the customers had entrusted to ADT, leaving them to question ADT’s ability to 

safeguard their interests. Yet others understand the false pitch for what it is, but reconsider 

their ADT service because ADT is a target of scammers. In many ways the Vivint agents’ 

false sales pitches damage ADT’s goodwill and reputation as a reliable provider of security, 

automation and smart home services. Some customers have reported ceasing all such services 

as a result of falling victim to these types of false and misleading practices. Some wrongly 

blame ADT for Vivint’s conduct and never come to understand the lack of affiliation between 

Vivint and ADT. 

35. As a result of Vivint’s deceptive practices, a number of ADT customers have 

confused Vivint’s sales agents with ADT representatives, and as a result have unwittingly 

found themselves with Vivint’s alarm systems installed in their homes, and with contractual 

obligations to both Vivint and ADT. In some instances, ADT has been required to send 

technicians to the deceived customers’ houses to reinstall the removed ADT equipment at 

considerable expense to ADT. In others, the customers retained Vivint’s systems and 

terminated their ADT contracts, often because Vivint makes it too cumbersome and timeconsuming for the customer to end the Vivint service despite it being consummated through 

fraud. In some circumstances, Vivint requires customers to pay substantial contract 

termination fees without consideration that the customer’s contract was acquired through 

false and deceptive means. 

36. Such practices violate statutory and common-law prohibitions against the use 

of false and deceptive statements in commerce. They also violate the security systems 

industry’s own Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, which requires that companies 

“truthfully and clearly identify themselves by name . . . at the initiation of a sales presentation, 

without request from the consumer,” and which prohibits as common deceptive sales 

practices, inter alia, (a) any claim that a competitor is going out of business, (b) any claim that 

the company is taking over the competitor’s accounts, or (c) any offer of an “update” or 

“upgrade” of an existing system that requires the execution of a contract with a new security 

services provider. 

37. Vivint knows these types of sales practices are contrary to the law and 

established industry standards, yet it knowingly continues such conduct. Vivint has not taken 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 8 of 19
9 

4841-7327-5086

appropriate action to curb such conduct by its agents. Some of the worst actors continue to 

be employed by Vivint despite numerous reports of deceptive conduct by those salespeople. 

Vivint does not terminate or appropriately discipline such agents because they bring 

substantial revenue streams to Vivint. Instead, Vivint engages in window dressing: providing 

half-hearted discouragement of such practices at the initial onboarding of new salespeople 

and promulgating empty-shell written policies purportedly prohibiting the practices. In 

reality, Vivint management condones and even teaches such deceptive sales tactics. The 

individuals knowledgeable of how to successfully pull off deceptive sales practices are 

promoted in the sales force and then teach such tactics to new recruits as they are brought in 

each year. The cycle repeats in contagious fashion. 

38. Occasionally, Vivint “fines” salespeople for committing deceptive sales, but 

often that is only when a competitor like ADT gets involved and aids the customer in seeking 

resolution with Vivint. On information and belief, these “fines” are not always actually 

collected from the representative, and sometimes they are merely deducted from a 

salesperson’s incentive bonuses for meeting certain sales thresholds. In other words, and also 

on information and belief, the fines are paid from the very money the agent gains from using 

such deceptive sales practices in the first place. It is profitable to the agent (and Vivint) because 

the salesperson gets “caught” on many fewer occasions than the conduct actually occurs. In 

any event, the “fines” levied are not sufficient to deter repetitive deceptive sales conduct by 

Vivint salespeople. Some of the worst offenders continue to be employed by Vivint, and some 

have been elevated into managerial positions. 

39. Upon information and belief, Vivint’s own internal records will show how 

widespread and common its deceptive sales practices are. Many ADT customers subject to 

deceptive sales practices by Vivint never complain to ADT. Rather, upon learning of Vivint’s 

fraud, they complain to Vivint. ADT therefore does not have any record of such conduct. 

Vivint is in exclusive possession and control of such records. 

40. Vivint has previously attempted to cast ADT’s efforts to reign in deceptive sales 

practices as some type of anti-competitive behavior by ADT. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. ADT simply wants this conduct to stop once and for all. Vivint is perennially one 

of the worst offenders in the industry with respect to this type of conduct. And ADT is not 

Vivint’s only victim: Vivint commits the same deceptive sales practices which ADT complains 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 9 of 19
10 

4841-7327-5086

about here to many other service providers in the industry. Vivint has built itself into the 

number two residential alarm services provider in the United States based in part on these 

practices. Such profits should be disgorged to the full extent permitted by the Lanham Act 

and related common law. 

41. The constant need to assist ADT customers in fixing problems resulting from 

Vivint’s deceptive sales conduct imposes a substantial cost on ADT to maintain and train 

customer service agents appropriately. In effect, ADT is forced to constantly police Vivint’s 

salespeople. Vivint is also liable for these costs and damages. 

42. As soon as a month after Vivint agreed to pay ADT $10 million to resolve 

claims of deceptive sales conduct spanning from 2013 to December 2017, in January 2018, 

ADT continued to receive reports from customers calling to complain about visits by Vivint 

sales agents using the same deceptive sales practices and claims of affiliation with ADT. 

43. In the approximately two-and-a-half-year span since the December 2017 

settlement, ADT has received over 250 reports of additional deceptive sales conduct by Vivint 

agents. On information and belief, dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of other customers 

have complained directly to Vivint about this conduct. 

44. Vivint operates on a seasonal sales model. Each year, Vivint hires a fresh group 

of students and transports them to sales locations across the country. As a result, Vivint’s sales 

occur mostly in the summer months. 

45. Alarmed by the ongoing rate of Vivint’s conduct, ADT engaged Vivint 

informally through counsel in the fall and winter of 2019 to express its concerns regarding 

Vivint’s ongoing conduct. Vivint assured ADT that Vivint was implementing new internal 

controls to detect agents’ use of such false pitches and to stop them from recurring, but they 

have nevertheless continued. 

46. The 250+ reports ADT has received since December 20, 2017 are but the tip of 

the iceberg. It is an accepted (and obvious) tenet of consumer complaint behavior, that Vivint 

has itself elsewhere asserted, that for every aggrieved customer who reports a deceptive sales 

practice, many more go uncounted. The complaints that ADT received over the period 

discussed above are likely indicative of thousands of other occurrences where the customer 

either does not take the time to complain or never realizes he or she has been duped. 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 10 of 19
11 

4841-7327-5086

47. ADT has received reports of deceptive sales practices in most states in which 

Vivint sells alarm systems. Approximately 13 of the reported incidents occurred in the state 

of Florida. 

48. The violations and torts alleged in this Complaint have been the subject of 

numerous prior public enforcement actions by various state agencies. For example, in January 

2017, Vivint settled an enforcement proceeding with the Pennsylvania Attorney General that 

found that Vivint’s sales agents had violated the state’s consumer protection laws by falsely 

stating in door-to-door solicitations that they were affiliated with the consumers’ existing 

security companies, that the consumers’ existing security providers had gone out of business, 

that they were purchased or taken over by Vivint, and that the consumers’ alarm systems 

needed to be updated. 

49. Vivint’s conduct is geographically widespread and numerically voluminous, 

especially when understood in the proper context that many deceptive sales encounters never 

get reported to ADT. 

50. Vivint’s conduct is knowing and intentional. At worst, Vivint knowingly 

teaches and condones these actions by its sales agents. At best, Vivint is aware of such conduct 

but does not take sufficient actions to stop them despite having the ability to do so. 

51. The reason Vivint’s conduct has not stopped is because Vivint profits to the 

tune of millions of dollars off the deceptive sales tactics of its sales force. Every alarm account 

Vivint acquires through deceptive sales conduct creates a new revenue stream for Vivint 

potentially for several years beyond the initial term of the new contract. In the big picture, 

Vivint’s profits increase exponentially by acquiring as many accounts as possible through 

whatever means possible. On information and belief, such conduct has permitted Vivint to 

bolster its financial reports and receive new credit and equity investments that otherwise might 

not be possible without the illegal sales conduct. 

52. ADT attaches as Exhibit 1 to this complaint a spreadsheet including 

information from customers who have complained to ADT about deceptive sales practices by 

Vivint agents from December 20, 2017 to the present. The spreadsheet includes information 

provided directly by ADT customers who have interacted with Vivint agents during that time 

period. During the course of discovery, ADT anticipates producing verbatim audio recordings 

of available phone calls where such customers called to report such conduct by Vivint’s agents 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 11 of 19
12 

4841-7327-5086

to ADT customer service representatives. ADT also anticipates eliciting sworn testimony 

from a sampling of such customers so that the finder of fact may hear about Vivint’s conduct 

directly from the customers who have fallen victim to it. ADT incorporates by reference the 

information set forth in Exhibit 1 as if fully set forth herein. 

53. The population of reported instances to ADT is, in turn, but a small fraction of 

the likely number of overall numbers of occurrences in the market. It is an accepted (even by 

Vivint) and obvious tenet of consumer complaint behavior that for every aggrieved customer 

who reports a deceptive sales practice, many more go uncounted. And, many customers only 

complain to Vivint such that ADT has no means of knowing of those incidents. 

54. As a result of Vivint’s claims of affiliation with ADT, ADT’s customers allow 

Vivint’s agents into their homes in the mistaken belief that they are speaking with a person 

affiliated somehow with ADT, visiting to provide the customers with goods and services that 

are related to their existing ADT alarm system. ADT’s customers repeatedly confirm that but 

for this initial confusion, they would never have allowed Vivint’s sales agents into their 

homes. 

55. This confusion, both at the outset of, and throughout, a sales transaction harms 

ADT by allowing competitors like Vivint to freeride on ADT’s goodwill with its customers to 

gain their attention and trust. Vivint’s later efforts to clarify their lack of ADT affiliation do 

not cure the confusion that has already occurred at the outset of the transaction, even in those 

instances where a customer understands by the end of the sale that she is contracting with 

Vivint. In many instances, the customer remains confused as to Vivint’s affiliation with ADT 

until sometime after the sale is completed. Sometimes, the customer figures out Vivint is not 

actually affiliated with ADT in the middle of the sale, after the customer’s ADT system has 

been removed and Vivint’s system has been installed, and by that time the customer does not 

feel that they have any choice but to continue and finalize the sale in light of the 

embarrassment of having been duped. Several customers describe that the Vivint sales 

representative coaches them to answer Vivint’s pre-installation survey, and oftentimes 

pressures the customer to answer questions quickly and without lucid understanding. The fact 

that Vivint utilizes preinstall surveys and questionnaires is evidence that Vivint knows that 

deceptive sales are an ongoing problem. It is also evidence that Vivint does not want to truly 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 12 of 19
13 

4841-7327-5086

address the underlying deceptive sales conduct but instead is more concerned with creating 

“litigation cover” for when customers raise issues about Vivint’s sales conduct. 

56. Customers often blame themselves for falling victim to Vivint’s false and 

misleading sales tactics. Such self-blame also contributes to an under-reporting of deceptive 

sales conduct. Such self-blame also harms ADT’s goodwill and reputation because customers 

believe they never would have fallen victim if they did not have an ADT system in their home 

in the first place. 

57. Often in conjunction with or as an alternative to the use of deceptive sales 

practices, Vivint also has begun a “buyout” program, which is itself rife with abuse and is 

contrary to common law against interference with contract and advantageous business 

relations. On information and belief, Vivint often uses its “buyouts” to help appease 

customers after they have complained about falling victim to Vivint deceptive sales practices. 

Once the customer raises the fact they were defrauded and misled by Vivint’s sales 

representative in one of the numerous ways described above, Vivint then offers to buy out the 

customer’s ADT contract as a way to “save” the sale. Vivint does so because it is profitable. 

Vivint acquires the account through deceptive means, and if caught, pays a sum to the 

customer to pay off their ADT contract that is far less than the new revenue stream to Vivint 

will generate. Vivint gains because the value of the account is many, if not most times, much 

more valuable than the amount required to pay off the ADT account. 

58. Even when not connected to a deceptive sales practice, Vivint’s buyout 

program is in itself illegal. Vivint knows that the customer is in a contract with ADT, but 

nevertheless wrongfully interferes with such contractual relationship and induces the 

customer to breach their ADT agreement. ADT also seeks damages related to this conduct. 

COUNT I 

UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION 

OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) 

59. ADT incorporates paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set forth fully herein. 

60. The ADT Security Corporation owns the ADT Trademarks. ADT LLC uses 

the ADT Trademarks under license from The ADT Security Corporation. Both are injured 

by any effort by Vivint to confuse ADT’s customers as to the affiliations of Vivint’s sales 

agents with ADT. 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 13 of 19
14 

4841-7327-5086

61. Vivint’s sales agents use false representations of affiliation with ADT to confuse 

ADT’s customers as to the agents’ true affiliation, to interest the customers in their pitches, 

to win the customers’ trust, and to gain access to their homes. 

62. In fact, the Vivint’s sales agents do not represent ADT, nor is Vivint itself 

affiliated in any manner with ADT. 

63. Vivint’s sales agents make these false representations to ADT’s customers with 

the intent of deceiving ADT’s customers as to a relationship or affiliation with ADT that does 

not exist, and that has never existed. 

64. These false and misleading statements are likely to confuse consumers 

regarding Vivint’s apparent (but false) affiliation with ADT in the initial stages of a sale. In 

fact, as documented in the accompanying Exhibit 1, they already have created confusion 

among consumers, and will continue to do so if permitted to continue. 

65. Some ADT customers, initially confused at their doorsteps, eventually realize 

by the end of the sale that the sales agents represent Vivint, not ADT. But many do not, 

remain confused at the point of sale and sign contracts with Vivint in the mistaken belief that 

they are contracting with ADT or one of its affiliates. Even when the customer is initially 

confused but later comes to understand the sales agent is not affiliated with ADT, ADT is still 

damaged by Vivint’s freeriding on ADT’s name and brand recognition. 

66. ADT has been and will continue to be damaged as a result of Vivint’s false 

representations by the confusion of the market for ADT’s goods and services, by the 

disruption of ADT’s relationships with its customers, by the diversion of ADT’s customers to 

Vivint, by ADT’s lost royalties, by ADT’s loss of control of the use of its brand in the market, 

and by damage to ADT’s goodwill and reputation as a reliable provider of security systems. 

67. ADT is entitled to an award of compensatory damages, as well as Vivint’s 

profits, attorney fees, and the costs of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court, 

pursuant the discretion confided to it under this section of the Act, should also consider 

enhancing these damages to compensate ADT fully for its losses. 

WHEREFORE, ADT respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor 

and against Vivint, and award the following relief: 

a. Compensatory damages, in an amount to be established at trial, but believed to 

be in excess of $10 Million; 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 14 of 19
15 

4841-7327-5086

b. An accounting of Vivint’s profits resulting from its deceptive practices, and 

payment of such profits to ADT; 

c. Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action, as provided 

by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); and 

d. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate in the 

circumstances. 

COUNT II 

COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION 

68. ADT incorporates paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set forth fully herein. 

69. ADT and Vivint compete for a common pool of customers. Both market 

security, automation, and smart-home services to the same target market of residential 

customers. 

70. Vivint has engaged in unfair and deceptive misconduct by fielding a staff of 

sales agents who prey on unsuspecting and sometimes elderly and infirm customers and who 

make false sales pitches to ADT’s customers that are designed to mislead them into believing 

that they are acting on ADT’s behalf, when in fact they represent a competitor freeriding 

ADT’s goodwill to interfere with ADT’s contracts with its customers, and to sell and install 

new Vivint alarm systems. 

71. Vivint’s actions are contrary to honest practice in industrial or commercial 

matters. They are prohibited by the alarm industry’s own code of conduct. They are 

independently actionable, inter alia, as tortious interferences with ADT’s contractual 

relationships, and as violations of the Lanham Act. 

72. Vivint’s actions are likely to cause confusion among consumers, and in fact 

already have caused confusion, as demonstrated by the attached declarations, not only in the 

initial stages of their agents’ sales pitches, but also at the point of sale. 

73. Vivint’s actions are also contrary to law because they prey upon elderly and 

infirm customers who are easy targets for their agents’ false sales pitches. 

74. ADT has been injured as a result of Vivint’s actions. 

75. Vivint’s sales agents’ false sales pitches at customer doorsteps are knowing and 

willful. They have continued for years, even after Vivint paid $10 Million to resolve nearly 

identical claims halfway through the ADT v. Vivint trial in December 2017. Accordingly, the 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 15 of 19
16 

4841-7327-5086

Court should award punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Vivint from continuing 

to engage in unfair competition in the market for electronic security services through their 

sales agents. 

WHEREFORE, ADT respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor 

and against Vivint, and award the following relief: 

a. Compensatory damages, in an amount to be established at trial, but believed to 

be no less than $10 Million; 

b. Punitive damages in a sum sufficient to deter Vivint from engaging in further 

deceptive sales tactics; 

c. Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action; and 

d. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate in the 

circumstances. 

COUNT III 

TRADE SLANDER/COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT 

76. ADT incorporates paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set forth fully herein. 

77. Vivint, through its sales agents, has intentionally made false and misleading 

statements about ADT, and about ADT’s products and services, in their sales pitches to 

ADT’s customers as alleged herein. 

78. Vivint’s false and misleading statements demean the quality of ADT’s goods 

and services. 

79. At the time the statements were made, Vivint knew the statements to be false. 

80. The statements are defamatory per se in that the statements suggest conduct 

incompatible with the lawful exercise of business. 

81. The statements are injurious and damage ADT in its industry and marketplace 

by causing ADT to lose sales, profits, and good will; suffer injury to its reputation with 

consumers; and incur attorney’s fees. 

WHEREFORE, ADT respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor 

and against Vivint for any and all incidents occurring on or after August 14, 2018, and award 

the following relief: 

a. Compensatory damages, in an amount to be established at trial; 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 16 of 19
17 

4841-7327-5086

b. Punitive damages in a sum sufficient to deter Vivint from engaging in further 

deceptive sales tactics; and 

c. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate in the 

circumstances. 

COUNT IV 

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH 

ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS 

82. ADT incorporates paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set forth fully herein. 

83. ADT maintains valid and enforceable contracts and business relationships with 

its customers. 

84. Typically, ADT customers display an ADT sign outside their homes to deter 

potential burglars and broadcast to the outside world that the home is protected by ADT’s 

alarm system. 

85. Vivint is knowledgeable of the contractual and business relationship between 

ADT and its customers. When Vivint sales agents visit the homes of these individuals, they 

become (or are already) aware of such relationship and contract by, among other means: the 

sign displayed in front of the customer’s home, talking with the customer, observing the ADT 

equipment in the customer’s home, or through prior research and intelligence conducted on 

the customer’s address regarding existing alarm systems. 

86. Despite knowledge of the customer’s contractual and business relationship with 

ADT, Vivint sales representatives intentionally and without valid justification interfere with 

such relationship using improper means, by misleading ADT’s customers into believing that 

Vivint represents ADT, or that Vivint is affiliated with ADT, or that they are visiting at ADT’s 

direction, or that they work for the companies that made the ADT alarm equipment installed 

in the customers’ homes, or that ADT has otherwise blessed Vivint to work on ADT’s behalf. 

Once Vivint’s agents induces ADT customers to believe that they have an existing business 

relationship with ADT, Vivint’s agents lead customers to sign Vivint contracts and install 

Vivint alarm systems, misleading ADT customers to believe that they are receiving new ADT 

equipment from ADT, an ADT affiliate, or an ADT successor, or that Vivint is assuming the 

ADT account, or that the customer has no choice but to permit the transaction to go forward 

if he or she wishes to continue to have operational alarm-monitoring services. Further, Vivint 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 17 of 19
18 

4841-7327-5086

agents procure the breach of the ADT contract upon the promise that Vivint will “buy out” 

the remaining term by paying to the customer an amount equal to the remaining obligation 

on their ADT contract. 

87. Vivint also offers buyouts to “save” sales procured through deceptive sales 

conduct in an attempt to pacify the customer. 

88. The customer does not always remit such payment to ADT. Even when the 

customer does, ADT is damaged because the value of the customer’s future account revenue 

often exceeds the contractual value of the remaining contractual term. For example, absent 

Vivint’s improper interference, it is not uncommon for a customer with two years left on his 

or her ADT contract to remain a loyal and paying customer to ADT for many years beyond 

the remaining two-year term. This is also why Vivint wrongfully engages in such buyout 

practices: Vivint knows the value of an alarm account often exceeds the immediate value 

under the contract. 

89. Vivint’s intentional and unjustifiable interference with ADT’s business 

relationships have caused ADT to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of lost 

goodwill and lost profits. ADT is damaged by Vivint’s unlawful conduct by losing revenue 

streams that otherwise would remain with ADT absent Vivint’s “buy out” offer. 

WHEREFORE, ADT respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor 

and against Vivint, and award the following relief: 

a. Compensatory damages, in an amount to be established at trial, for the 

damages to ADT caused by Vivint’s unlawful “buyout” practices; 

b. Punitive damages in a sum sufficient to deter Vivint from engaging in further 

deceptive sales tactics; 

c. Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action; and 

d. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate in the 

circumstances. 

JURY DEMAND 

ADT demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 18 of 19
19 

4841-7327-5086

Dated: October 13, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Eric S. Boos 

Jennifer A. McLoone 

Florida Bar No. 029234 

jmcloone@shb.com

Eric S. Boos 

Florida Bar No. 0107673 

eboos@shb.com 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 358-5171 

Fax: (305) 358-7470 

-andCharles C. Eblen 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

ceblen@shb.com 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 

2555 Grand Blvd. 

Kansas City, Missouri 64108 

Tel: (816) 474-6550 

Fax: (816) 421-5547 

-andEric J. Hobbs 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

ehobbs@shb.com 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 

1660 17th Street, Suite 450 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Tel: (303) 285-5300 

Fax: (303) 285-5301 

Counsel for Plaintiffs ADT LLC and The ADT 

Security Corporation 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 19 of 19