Ring Slapped With Lawsuit Following Reports of Camera Security Breaches
Despite Amazon-owned Ring's suite of security offerings, the federal complaint contends that the company has failed to set up "even basic cybersecurity protections."
January 03, 2020 at 08:18 PM
2 minute read
A Mississippi couple whose story made headlines after a hacker breached their Ring security device and called their 8-year-old daughter racial slurs has filed a class action complaint against the Amazon subsidiary.
Ashley Lemay and Dylan Blakeley filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Friday alongside a Texas couple, Tania Amador and Todd Craig, who were threatened with "termination" by a person who hacked into their Ring system if they did not pay a 50 bitcoin ransom.
The consumers seek to hold Santa Monica, California-based Ring LLC accountable for "widespread reports" of defective systems, and are asking the court to require the company to fix the vulnerabilities and compensate potential class members for the damages.
"Even as its customers are repeatedly hacked, spied on, and harassed by unauthorized third parties, Ring has made the non-credible assertions that it has not suffered any data breaches and that there are no problems with the privacy and security of its devices," write plaintiffs counsel from Tycko & Zavareei and Stueve Siegel Hanson in the complaint.
The plaintiffs are suing for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and intrusion upon seclusion.
A spokesperson for Ring said the company does not comment on legal matters.
Despite offering a suite of security offerings, the complaint contends that the company has failed to set up "even basic cybersecurity protections," such as two-factor authentication, protections from repeated attempts to log in to a device or automatic alerts when someone logs in from an unfamiliar IP address.
The plaintiffs are represented by Tycko & Zavareei's Hassan Zavareei, Katherine Aizpuru and Annick Persinger; and Stueve Siegel's Norman Siegel, Barrett Vahle and J. Austin Moore. The attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readStock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 2'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
- 3Navigating the Storm: Effective Crisis Management (Part 1)
- 4The Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
- 5Trump 2.0 and Your Career
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250