18.  ADT markets, advertises, and sells wireless home security and home automation  equipment and services to consumers.  These services can be purchased separately, but ADT  advertises that “wireless home security systems are easily upgradable to ADT Pulse® service,  one simple solution combining home security and home automation.”   20.  ADT describes its home automation products and services as “Innovative  technology lets you manage your home and lifestyle – anytime, anywhere.”   21.  Furthermore, ADT markets and advertises its ADT Pulse® service as providing  peace of mind as well, stating that “Smart home systems help you stay connected and protected  with easy-to-use features that give you peace of mind – practically anywhere, any time.”  ADT’s Deceptive and Misleading Marketing Statements   22.  In marketing materials, including on its website, ADT misrepresents that its home  security equipment and services are safe, reliable, and secure.  ADT makes these  misrepresentations to customers knowing that extra security is the main reason consumers and  businesses purchase home security and automation systems.     23.  For example, ADT makes the following representations on its website:  a. Customers can “Get Security You Can Count On. Every Day of the Year”;  b. “Your haven is armed with 24-hour-a-day protection, 365 days a year”;  c. Customers can “Live worry-free with ADT Security for less than $1 a Day”;  and  d. “Fast. Reliable. Security Protection. ADT stays constantly alert with six  Customer Monitoring Centers operating day and night across the country. Our  Customer Monitoring Centers are nationally connected, equipped with secure  communication links and backed by the latest technology so that our security  team is always ready to act the moment an incident occurs.”    25.  ADT also represents that it uses advanced and innovative technology.  For  example, on ADT’s website, there is a section entitled “Innovative Technology.”  In that section,  ADT states “Our six nationwide Customer Monitoring Centers are operated by state-of-the-art  technology backed by powerful equipment and secure communication links. It is this nationwide  connection and innovative security technology that gives ADT the ability to provide security  protection during adverse conditions.”   26.  ADT’s marketing materials further highlight ADT’s purported advanced  technology.  For example, ADT represents that:  a.  “ADT takes pride in using the most advanced technology….”;  b. “Only ADT has the most security industry experience, is the leader in  innovative security technology, and can provide you with the fastest response  times”;   c. “Our experience, technology and people make the difference in your security  protection.” and  d. “You invest in ADT home security and automation systems to help protect  your loved ones. Your satisfaction is important to us, and is the reason we are  committed to providing you with state-of-the-art equipment and service.”   28.  Despite its representations in its marketing materials, ADT’s wireless systems  are unencrypted and unauthenticated, and otherwise insecure.  Therefore, ADT’s wireless  systems are easily accessed and manipulated—or “hacked”—by unauthorized third parties.   29.  By hacking ADT’s wireless systems, unauthorized third parties can, inter alia,  remotely disconnect or turn off the security systems so that customers are unknowingly left  unprotected by their systems.   30.  Unauthorized third parties can also hack into ADT’s wireless systems and use  customers’ own security cameras to unknowingly spy on them.     31.  Moreover, unauthorized third parties can manipulate ADT’s wireless security  systems to falsely report that the alarm was triggered.  This causes ADT to call customers and  ask if they want the police called.  Troublingly, third parties can use this tactic to see if specific  customers actually have the police summoned to their homes; if not, the third parties can use  that information to target those customers for home invasions (or worse).   32.  Upon information and belief, third parties can hack into ADT’s wireless systems  with, inter alia, something as simple as a Software-Defined Radio (“SDR”), which sells on the  open market with no restrictions for less than $10.   34.  ADT knows that its systems are vulnerable to intrusion.  In a statement, an ADT  spokesperson said that “There are many experiments conducted each year by professional  hackers in controlled environments who seek vulnerabilities within an array of different  products and systems. Our customers should know that we take the outcome from any of these  tests with the highest level of seriousness, and we continually invest significant resources in  modifying and improving our systems accordingly.”2   35.  Despite ADT’s knowledge and promise to modify and improve its systems, ADT  has failed to modify or improve its systems to encrypt the wireless signals, or to otherwise make  them more secure.     36.  Moreover, ADT does not notify customers that their systems are unencrypted or  insufficiently secure.  Instead, ADT misrepresents the security of its wireless systems and its  use of purportedly “advanced and innovative technology” in its marketing materials.   37.  In its marketing materials, ADT does not warn customers to take precautions  against hacking, or that these wireless systems can be hacked.    39.  As a result of ADT’s misrepresentations and omissions and ADT’s failure to  secure its wireless systems, customers are much less safe than they think that they are when  ADT’s wireless systems are activated.   40.  ADT’s misrepresentations and omissions regarding the security of its wireless  systems was deliberate and intentional, as if potential customers knew the truth, they would not  have purchased an ADT wireless system.    41.  Based on the deceptive and misleading representations and omissions made by  ADT as detailed above, Plaintiff and the Class members entered into an Alarm Services Contract  (“Contract”) with ADT on May 8, 2013.  The term of the Contract is three (3) years.  Upon  information and belief, the terms of Plaintiff’s Contract were the same or substantially similar to  all Class members’ Contracts, as ADT uses standard, uniform Contracts for all of its customers.   42.  Additionally, in connection with the Contract, Plaintiff and the Class members  purchased the corresponding ADT wireless security equipment, such as sensors, a wireless  device, and a control box.   43.  None of the marketing materials that Plaintiff and the Class members saw prior to  entering into the Contract disclosed that ADT’s wireless security equipment was unencrypted,  unauthenticated, or otherwise insecure and easily hacked.   45.  Had Plaintiff and the Class members known the truth about ADT’s misleading  representations, or the insecurity of ADT’s wireless security equipment, they would not have  entered into the Contract or purchased any of the associated equipment.   46.  Plaintiff and the Class members continue to suffer harm as a result of ADT’s  aforementioned acts and practices, as they remain bound by their Contract with ADT, and will  have to pay a penalty if they cancel it.   47.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),   (b)(2), and (b)(3), on behalf of himself and a putative Class of similarly situated individuals,  defined as follows:  All persons who entered into an ADT Alarm Services Contract and purchased  ADT wireless security equipment (the “Class”).  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of a putative Subclass of similarly situated individuals,  defined as follows:  All Illinois residents who entered into an ADT Alarm Services Contract and  purchased ADT wireless security equipment (the “Subclass”).  Excluded from the Class and Subclass are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or  their parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’ current and former employees,  officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s  immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion  from the Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally  adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and  assigns of any such excluded person.    50.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class and Subclass  members.  All are based on the same legal and factual issues.  Plaintiff and each of the Class and  Subclass members entered into ADT’s standard, uniform Contract, and purchased the same  defective  ADT  wireless  security  equipment.  Moreover,  ADT’s  aforementioned  misrepresentations and omissions were uniformly made to Plaintiff and all Subclass members.    51.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and Subclass, and has retained counsel competent and  experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class  and Subclass, and ADT has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   53.  Unless a class is certified, ADT will retain monies received as a result of its  conduct that was wrongfully taken from Plaintiff and Class and Subclass members.  Unless an  injunction is issued, ADT will continue to commit the violations alleged, and the members of the  putative Class, Subclass and the general public will continue to be misled and continue to be less  safe and secure in their homes and businesses.   54.  By making the uniform misleading marketing statements detailed above, and by  failing to adequately secure its wireless systems, ADT has acted and refused to act on grounds  generally applicable to the proposed Class and Subclass, making appropriate final injunctive  relief with respect to the proposed Class and Subclass as a whole.  55.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-54 as though fully set forth herein.   56.  The FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et. seq., protects consumers from “unfair  methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct  of any trade or commerce.”  Fla. Stat. § 501.204.   57.  Plaintiff and Class members are “consumers” as defined by § 501.203(7) of the  FDUTPA, and the subject transactions with ADT are “trade or commerce” as defined by §  501.203(8).     58.  ADT is a “person” within the meaning of the FUDTPA and, at all pertinent times,  was subject to the requirements and proscriptions of the FUDTPA with respect to all of their  business and trade practices described herein.   60.  ADT has engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or  practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade and commerce by,  inter alia, knowingly misrepresenting the security and advanced technology of its wireless  services, failing to notify customers of the insecurity of their wireless systems, and failing to  encrypt or otherwise secure their wireless systems, which was deceptive and misleading, and  reasonably likely to deceive the public.   61.  ADT’s deceptive and unfair marketing campaign detailed herein was uniform to  consumers, including Plaintiff and Class members.  Through this extensive and exhaustive  marketing campaign, ADT has conveyed one uniform deceptive and misleading message:  consumers and businesses who purchase ADT wireless security systems are more secure than  they actually are.   62.  ADT’s marketing campaign is intentionally designed to induce consumers to  purchase its products and accompanying services as a result of its misrepresentations and  omissions.     63.  ADT knows about the insecurity and susceptibility to hacking of its wireless  systems, yet continues to make the misrepresentations and omissions detailed herein, and  continues to provide insecure wireless systems to customers.   65.  Unless preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is granted and ADT is  required to encrypt its wireless systems, Plaintiff and the Class will continue to suffer harm  throughout the duration of their Contracts.  Plaintiff and the Class do not have an adequate  remedy at law for this continued harm, and the balance of the equities weighs in favor of Plaintiff  and the Class.   66.  Unless preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is granted and ADT is  required to rectify its misleading marketing materials, consumers will continue to be harmed by  purchasing ADT wireless systems as a result of ADT’s deceptive and misleading practices, and  by being less secure than they otherwise would be.   67.  Plaintiff and the Class have suffered ascertainable losses as a direct result of  ADT’s employment of unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.   68.  The injuries to Plaintiff and the members of the Class were caused by ADT’s  conduct in deceptive and misleading marketing that originated in Florida, including the  marketing materials described above.  All of the marketing and promotional activities and  literature were coordinated at, emanate from, and are developed at ADT’s Florida headquarters.   All critical decisions regarding ADT’s marketing were made in Florida.   69.  Furthermore, most of the misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein were  contained on ADT’s website, which is maintained in Florida.   71.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-54 as though fully set forth herein.   72.  At all times relevant hereto, there was in full force and effect the ICFA, 815 ILCS  505/1, et seq.   73.  Chapter 2 of the ICFA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices used or  employed in the conduct of any trade or commerce.  See 815 ILCS 505/2.   74.  ADT’s knowing and intentional misrepresentations and omissions set forth above  are unfair and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Chapter 2 of the ICFA.  See 815 ILCS  505/2.   76.  ADT’s affirmative misrepresentations, omissions, and practices described herein  were designed to, and did in fact, deceive and mislead members of the public, including Plaintiff  and Subclass members, to their detriment.      77.  ADT’s conduct described herein created a likelihood of confusion or  misunderstanding for Plaintiff and members of the Subclass by misrepresenting that ADT’s  wireless systems were secure, reliable, trustworthy, and that ADT uses advanced and innovative  technology.   78.  ADT’s conduct described herein also constitutes prohibited unfair conduct under  the ICFA because misrepresentations and failures to disclose in connection with an important  safety issue offend public policy; are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous; and  cause substantial injury to consumers.   79.  ADT intended to deceive and be unfair to Plaintiff and members of the putative  Subclass by engaging in the practices described herein so that ADT could begin collecting the  contractual monies due from its customers.  ADT’s intent is evidenced by, inter alia, its  acknowledgement of the insecurity of its wireless systems by its spokesperson in its statement.   80.  ADT intended that Plaintiff and members of the Subclass rely on ADT’s  misrepresentations and omissions concerning the safety and security of its wireless systems.     81.  Plaintiff and members of the Subclass relied on ADT’s misrepresentations and  omissions to their detriment by purchasing ADT equipment and entering into ADT Contracts.   82.  The above-described deceptive and unfair acts and practices were used or  employed in the conduct of trade or commerce.   84.  As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and members of the  Subclass have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, and Plaintiff and members  of the Subclass continue to be damaged as a result of the insecurity of ADT’s wireless systems.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order as follows:  A.  Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a  class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and certifying the Subclass  defined herein;  B.  Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Subclass Class, and his  undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;  C.  Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against ADT;  D.  Enjoining  ADT’s  illegal  conduct  alleged  herein  and  ordering  disgorgement of any of its ill-gotten gains;  E.  Mandatorily enjoining ADT to provide adequate warnings and notice to  the Class concerning the vulnerability of ADT systems;   F.  Mandatorily enjoining ADT to secure its wireless systems;   G.  Awarding Plaintiff and the Subclass actual and punitive damages,  attorney’s fees and costs, including interest thereon, as allowed or required  by law;   H.  Granting all such further and other relief as the Court deems just and  appropriate.  85.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 to 54 as though fully set forth herein.   87.  ADT’s retention of this benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice,  equity, and good conscience.   88.  ADT accepted this unjust benefit, and it would be inequitable for ADT to retain  the benefit of those monies, as ADT was paid the money as a result of ADT’s deceptive and  unfair practices.   89.  ADT has obtained money to which it is not entitled, and interest on that money,  and under these circumstances equity and good conscience require that ADT return the money  with interest to Plaintiff and the Class.   90.  As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class have  been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order as follows:  A.  Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a  class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and certifying the Class defined  herein;  B.  Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and his undersigned  counsel as Class Counsel;  C.  Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against ADT;  D.  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class restitution and any other equitable relief  that may be appropriate;  E.  Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages, attorney’s fees and  costs, including interest thereon, as allowed or required by law; and  F.  Granting all such further and other relief as the Court deems just and  appropriate.  ADT’s Home Security and Home Automation Equipment and Services   Unjust Enrichment  (Plead in the alternative to Counts I and II)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass)   Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  