Customer Sues Vivint for Charging a Monthly Fee After Deactivating His Service

Home security company Vivint failed to disclose to a customer that he would be required to buy additional products to receive its service and refused to allow him to cancel home monitoring, alleged a Jan. 12 fraud class action (docket 1:24-cv-01010) removed Wednesday from Burlington County, New Jersey, Superior Court to U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.

Doughty Harris of Willingboro Township, New Jersey, agreed to buy Vivint home security products for $2,000 from a Vivint door-to-door sales representative in July 2021 in exchange for a monthly fee, said the complaint. He agreed to pay for the products and home monitoring service via monthly payments over two years but did not sign a written contract, it said.

In July 2023, after having paid for monitoring service for two years and paying in full for the equipment, Harris decided to cancel Vivint service because the equipment “did not work properly,” and he had experienced poor customer service from Vivint, the complaint said. Harris had since bought home monitoring service from another security company and no longer required Vivint service, it said. When Harris called Vivint that month to cancel service, the company “refused to cancel” his account, it said.

When customers try to cancel service plans, Vivint emails a form instructing them to provide additional “required information” -- name, address, service number, and reason for cancellation -- in writing via email, the complaint said. The email says customers’ accounts will be processed for cancellation 30 days after the notice is received “for the sole reason of discouraging and deterring them from cancelling their account,” it alleged.

Even after a customer provides the requested information, Vivint “still has a uniform policy of systematically refusing to cancel the customer’s account,” said the complaint. The company repeatedly calls customers with discount offers trying to convince them to revoke their cancellation, it said. If a customer declines to revoke the requested cancellation, Vivint “will simply not cancel the customer’s account as requested and will continue to charge the customer well past the promised 30-day cancellation period,” it said.

Harris provided all requested information for cancellation, but Vivint didn't cancel his account, though it deactivated the equipment and stopped providing home monitoring service, the complaint said. Yet, it “continued to charge him on a monthly basis for the monitoring service that it was not providing,” it said.

Harris was “pressured” into agreeing to renew his home monitoring service at a $34.99 monthly rate in August, but when a technician arrived to reactivate service, he told Harris the equipment he had bought two years prior for $2,000 was “outdated” and that he needed to buy a new monitor for about $1,000 to reactivate service, the complaint said. Harris wouldn’t have agreed to renew monitoring service if he had known it would cost him $1,000 more in equipment, the complaint said. He declined to pay the additional $1,000, so the technician didn’t reactivate his service, it said.

Since September, Harris has called Vivint numerous times in an attempt to cancel his account, the complaint said. Vivint “refuses to cancel” it and continues to bill Harris monthly, it said. Harris has not received any monitoring services from Vivint since at least July when he first tried to cancel his account and his account was deactivated, it said. The company billed Harris from July through January, and Harris paid bills through October “even though he was receiving no service,” the complaint said.

Vivint’s sale of home security products and services in New Jersey requires customers to pay the retail purchase price in two or more installments over a period of time, said the complaint. Such sales are subject to the requirements of the New Jersey Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), it said.

Vivint policy is for New Jersey customers to review any “purported contract” for sale of products and services “on a small computer screen or online” and to indicate their assent to the contract by clicking a box, said the complaint. When Vivint sales representatives solicit sales via telemarketing, they read “portions of the purported contract” and obtain consumers’ verbal consent only, it said. “In no instance” does Vivint or its agents sign any “purported contract for the sale of goods or services,” in violation of RISA, it said.

The company’s sale of home security products and services to New Jersey consumers without a signed, written contract, without disclosing full terms and conditions and without allowing customers to cancel service plans on request as provided by the parties’ agreement violates New Jersey law, the complaint said. The alleged violation makes Vivint “ineligible to receive fees from New Jersey consumers” for those services, such that all of its New Jersey customers “must be afforded the opportunity to cancel … its services immediately, without penalty, and to receive a refund of all monies collected” during the period when Vivint wasn’t in compliance with legal requirements, it said.

Harris' complaint claims Vivint violated the New Jersey Uniform Declaratory Judgment, Consumer Fraud and New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice acts. He also claims unjust enrichment/disgorgement and breach of contract for violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief enjoining Vivint’s allegedly unlawful practices and money damages for harm suffered as a result of the alleged conduct, including treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Vivint didn’t comment Thursday.