Re: Computer virus???

[Nick Lawrence <nlaw@xxxxxxx>]

Nomen,

Prior to the lawsuit being filed, the alarmco
local-programming-locked-out customer-owned panels, and, even when the
subscriber had fully completed (and paid for) the term of the agreement,
and had requested in writing that their panel be unlocked, the alarmco
failed to do so. I have personal knowledge of this.

One such subscriber, in Oakland CA, whose FBI panel was
local-programming-locked-out, filed the lawsuit. I have met the
subscriber, and tested the locked-out panel.

As a result of the lawsuit, the alarmco no longer does these things, and
cooperates with the subscriber and the new vendor to make sure panels
are not local-programming-locked-out. I am personally aware of this...
and the alarmco has promptly unlocked panels at my request.

The settlement is a public document on file in the Alameda County
Superior Courthouse in Oakland CA.

It was merely the alarmco's attorneys who said, in 2005, "the lawsuit
was not a consumer class action, but rather a purported class action"
and "the lawsuit was settled in mid-1999 without Bay Alarm admitting any
wrongdoing and without a class being certified"."

As a sidebar, at the exact time the attorneys said those words, in early
2005, Bay Alarm Company, in fact, had neither the burglar alarm license
(ACO) nor the fire alarm license (C-10) required to operate a CA alarm
company. In fact, it had not possessed either license since late 2000.


Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Actually, the case affected the many thousands of consumers of Bay Alarm
>> Company services, as Bay Alarm Company changed its behavior.
>
> What makes you say that?  The article you quoted from said Bay settled the
> suit without admitting liability, and that it did not become a class
> action.  That sounds like they just made a lawsuit go away without saying
> they did anything wrong.  Do you have any more details about the
> settlement?
>