Home Security Company Says No One Linking To Its Website Is Allowed To Disparage It

from the lol-no dept

With a federal law in place forbidding this sort of stuff, and an internet full of documentation detailing just how badly things go for companies that institute these policies, why on earth would ADT Security add this clause to its Terms of Use?

For those of you who can’t see the tweet, soon-to-be-former ADT customer scriptjunkie has been informed via dialog box ADT’s Terms of Use have changed. ADT’s Terms of Use contain a Streisand Precursor: if you link to ADT’s site, you promise not to do several things, including:

Will not disparage ADT, ADT’s products or services, or any of ADT’s affiliates or their products or services

This isn’t even legal in this day and age, but hiding it in a bunch of words users will likely never read is a great way to fly under the federal law radar. This, of course, only lasts until someone points it out on the internet and, while linking to ADT’s site, points out the clause is stupid, the company is stupid for deploying it, and the company’s lawyers are just as stupid for suggesting it/signing off on it.

To be fair, ADT’s stupid non-disparagement clause isn’t part of the update scriptjunkie received. The moronic “promise” it extracts from site linkers dates back to at least 2014. It predates the federal law banning these clauses, which makes its pre-2016 existence somewhat explicable. But that doesn’t explain why it hasn’t been removed to make the Terms of Use federal law-compliant.

Considering the amount of effort it would take (next to none) to remove this from the site’s Terms of Use, its continued existence is perplexing, especially in light of ADT’s repeated promise to remove the clause. At the time of this writing, more than 16 hours have passed since ADT promised to remove it and the clause still exists on the Terms of Use page. Even more perplexing is ADT’s explanation/apology, which is actually neither.

We also value your honest opinion and have built our company around implementing our customers’ feedback. The non-disparagement clause you are referencing only applies to linking to our website and is not a condition of service or using ADT.com.

While it’s nice to know ADT isn’t preventing people from disparaging the company without linking to its site, trying to prevent them from doing so while linking isn’t any better. Review sites tend to provide links to company websites, making third-party reviews a potential violation of this clause.

But even if we take ADT’s explanation at face value, we’re still left with its questionable decision to insert this language anywhere in any explicit or implicit agreement with site visitors and/or customers. No business should ever take this indefensible position, especially not after it’s been made statutorily explicit these agreements are considered invalid — and illegal — by the federal government.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: adt

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Home Security Company Says No One Linking To Its Website Is Allowed To Disparage It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Had to call the police

Had to call the police on one of their cocky ass representatives that thought they were going to pull a high pressure sale on me.

I told that little fuck to get off my porch before I called the police and he said… go right on ahead we have a great reputation with them so I said… lets find out.

It all happened so fast I wished I had taken a picture of his fucking face before I dialed the police.

radarmonkey (profile) says:

Re: Re: Small correction

As may be. I was not referring to the TOS, but to ADT’s response on Twitter.

Tim specifically calls out ADT’s explanation/apology (and linked to the tweet with the graphic) then did a blockquote of that explanation/apology. The blockquote does not correctly quote what ADT said. It’s minor, I know, but what’s in Tim’s article is not correct.

Anonymous Coward says:

“these agreements are considered invalid — and illegal — by the federal government.”

While legally unenforceable, such actions are not really “illegal” until the government decides to enforce its own laws, a utopian reality which we all know rarely happens against major corporations who choose to test the boundaries of the law.

It’s why contracts generally contain reams and reams of crap that is not just unethical, but totally unenforceable. Such tactics work because most people are willing to sign anything put in front of them and don’t know what their legal rights really are.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: legality, enforcability, and possession...

Dear IT Guy
A contract means something that draws multiple parties together. Legality and legal enforceability in court are just one small piece of the picture — if you don’t believe me, just try taking your ISP to court for their frankly fraudulent promises over the phone.

The phrase here is “possession is nine tenths of the law”.

Now, personally, if ADT is silly enough to not permit honest reviews, well, how can I expect their service to be anything more than a sign to amateur petty crooks:

“hey! valuables here…free half hour pass!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: legality, enforcability, and possession...

Was it a signed contract between two parties that agree upon all terms and conditions?

Used to be, EULA & TOS terms and conditions had not yet been tested in court as to whether they are actually enforceable contractual items. Has this changed?

In addition, the part where the EULA or TOS says something to the effect that you agree to whatever future changes the company feels it is entitled to is … ummm bullshit.

mcinsand (profile) says:

Re: Re: barriers to fighting enforcement

ADT used to have an automatic renewal where the customer/victim, ‘contract’ stipulated that the customer/victim could only discontinue service during the annual renewal month. That sort of practice is illegal in my state, but the legal costs of defending our state-granted rights are higher than waiting to drop their service.

A truly sleazy company. I give them an 8 on the Comcast/AT&T scale.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Does it matter

Just because it’s not enforceable, that doesn’t mean you can’t be sued over it.

You could declare “it’s not enforceable,” and ignore it. But then you’d get a default judgement against you, with the court never considering the merits of the case or whether it was enforceable.

Or you could fight it and win. And still be out tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Courts often work on the “Golden Rule:” Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Does it matter

As a friend of mine found out, that doesn’t always work.

– He buys a house.
– It already has an alarm system.
– Which is of little use, given that the police have announced that due to all the false alarms in the city, it won’t respond to alarm calls without a human confirming the break-in.
– ADT contacts him, informs him that the previous owner had a contract, and he’s expected to honor it.
– He declines. Not interested. Tells them to stop any monitoring.
– ADT declares that it owns the alarm system until the contract is up, and he must let them rip it and all the sensors out.
– He declines. He bought the house with all the fixtures. He knows the law; he owns the equipment. Any contract dispute ADT has is between them and the previous owner.
– He also disconnects the power to the alarm system.
– Weeks later angry police show up at his door. They’ve had several alarms from his home phoned in and confirmed by ADT, and this was the first time anyone was home when they showed up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Does it matter

They can of course claim a lien on the house. The homeowner might not find out about it until years later, when selling the house.

Anyway, mortgage companies require everyone buying a house to get title insurance, which is supposed to take care of any lingering disputes between the previous owner and third parties.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Does it matter

– Weeks later angry police show up at his door. They’ve had several alarms from his home phoned in and confirmed by ADT, and this was the first time anyone was home when they showed up.

So extortion basically, lovely. ‘Pay for our ‘protection’ or we’ll crank-call the police on your behalf.’ Can’t help but think that if the police are even slightly intelligent that such a move would backfire badly on them, as you’ve got a ‘security’ company issuing fraudulent calls and wasting their time with false alarms.

Anonymous Coward says:

Beyond the fact that this clause is expressly unenforceable. How would enforce it even in principal? I’ve never been to any of their sites, but I can still link them without having done so:

And since I’ve never been to their site, I can’t have even so much as clicked an accept button. In their twisted minds have they still somehow engaged in a contract with me? Am I in violation of their shitty EULA for a website I’ve never even been to and a company I’ve never had any dealings with for calling them, their service, and their website shitty?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

I wish they had taken me up on my offer.
Fire the moron responsible, give me half the salary & I’d fix it for them.

The insane “apology’s” trying to claim it meant something other than what it clearly said, when what they claimed it REALLY meant was in a separate clause right below it.

I suppose if I wanted them to take my offer, I shouldn’t have tagged the FTC into the thread…
But it was fun screaming how bad their service had to be to use this sort of clause & then telling their social media team they needed to wake up someone important because they are breaking the law.


It’s not easy being this much of an ass, but I can do it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Inherited ADT System

Inactive in my new flat, I have one of ADT’s systems left from a previous tenant. ADT has recently begun trying to recruit me to activate the system. Thanks to scriptjunkie and respondents to this article, I now know better than to go anywhere near these sneaky, unscrupulous, lying, vengeful jerks.

Time to remove and dispose of the ADT hardware to save future residents from being victimized.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...