XML 54 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations There have been no material changes to the Company’s purchase obligations as compared to December 31, 2019. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, which include contractual disputes; worker’s compensation; employment matters; product, general, and auto liability claims; claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others; claims related to alleged security system failures; and consumer and employment class actions. The Company is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony, and information in connection with various aspects of its activities. The Company records accruals for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable. These accruals are based on a variety of factors such as judgment, probability of loss, opinions of internal and external legal counsel, and actuarially determined estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported based upon historical claims experience. Legal costs in connection with claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business are expensed as incurred. Additionally, the Company records insurance recovery receivables from third-party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. The Company’s accrual for ongoing claims and lawsuits not within scope of an insurance program was not material and in most cases the Company has not accrued for any losses as the ultimate outcome or the range of possible loss cannot be estimated. The Company’s accrual for ongoing claims and lawsuits within scope of an insurance program totaled $111 million and $105 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Environmental Matters In October 2013, the Company was notified by subpoena that the Office of the Attorney General of California, in conjunction with the Alameda County District Attorney, is investigating whether the Company’s electronic waste disposal policies, procedures, and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. During 2016, Protection One, Inc. was also notified by the same parties that it was subject to a similar investigation. The investigations have been inactive since December 2016 other than a status conference conducted in May 2019. The Company is coordinating joint handling of both investigations and continues to fully cooperate with the respective authorities. Shareholder Litigation Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits related to the IPO in January 2018 were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and were consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of shareholder plaintiffs and sought to represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the Company, the Company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company. A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018. In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both the state court and the federal court actions. In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in October 2019. The parties are documenting the settlement in principle, after which the parties plan to move in state court for certification of a class for settlement purposes and approval of the settlement. California Independent Contractor Litigation In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company. The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV 1702912, Superior Court, Marin County). Mr. Shuheiber was the owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc. (“MPI”), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation. In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims such that they were brought on a class basis. The proposed class is not clearly defined but appears to be composed of two groups of individuals: 1) individual owners of sub-contractors who performed services for the sub-contractor; and 2) individuals with no ownership interest in a sub-contractor who were employed by the sub-contractor and provided services pursuant to a contract between the sub-contractor and the Company. In October 2018, the Company answered the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiffs’ sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of ADT’s sub-contract. In November 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle. The settlement has been documented and received preliminary approval from the court in July 2020. Los Angeles Alarm Permit Class Action In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit fee in its customer contracts. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm system installation. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment was entered in the Company’s favor in October 2014, which the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers who received fines from the City of Los Angeles. The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in January 2020. The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to move for settlement approval and certification of a class for settlement purposes. Wage and Hour Class Actions In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders, which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), breach of contract under state law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA collective action. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid wages. The parties are actively engaged in discovery. Unauthorized Access by a Former Technician In April 2020, after investigating a customer inquiry, the Company self-disclosed that a former technician based in Dallas, Texas had, during service visits, added his personal email address to 220 of the Company’s customers’ accounts, which provided this employee with varying levels of unauthorized personal access to such customers’ in-home security systems. In response, the Company initiated an affirmative outreach effort to notify all customers affected by this activity and to address their concerns. Since the disclosure, three lawsuits have been filed against the Company. In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated, and seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After the Company moved to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2020 to add the former technician as a defendant, to allege additional claims against the Company, and to assert representation of a new subclass. In June 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as individuals residing in homes of Company customers, and seeks to recover damages for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and further to compel arbitration. The Company was also served with a complaint filed in Texas state court by an individual Company customer and may be subject to future legal claims.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration