Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 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 $109 million and $105 million as of March 31, 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 shareholders 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. The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to move in state court for settlement approval and certification of a class for settlement purposes.

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 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff’s 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 is being documented, after which the parties plan to move for settlement approval and certification of a class for settlement purposes.

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. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid wages. The parties are actively engaged in discovery.

Unauthorized Employee Access

In April 2020, after investigating a customer inquiry, the Company disclosed that a Dallas-based Company technician 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. While the Company has notified all such customers of this activity, and has reached resolution with several of these customers, the Company cannot be certain that others impacted will not make legal claims against the Company, either individually or as a class. Although the Company would vigorously defend any such unasserted claims, the ultimate outcome or the range of possible loss cannot currently be estimated.