Accordingly, the provisions of the State of Washington’s consumer protection statutes, specifically RCW Chapter 19.86.010 and 19.86.020 affords consumers protection from “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce…declared unlawful.” On or about the first quarter of 2009, the following unfair or deceptive acts occurred:
I contacted the company, via telephone, inquiring about an alarm vendor to provide residential alarm monitoring services for my home at a cost not to exceed $19.95 per month (1st Quarter 2009). Please refer to the web site www.alarmmonitoringservices.com. As of the date of this Complaint, this company web site states: “No Contract Terms. Cancel Anytime.” I just moved into my residence in January 2009. This residence’s burglar/fire central alarm system was dormant and inactive for some period. The company was the only alarm monitoring services company I contacted. The company sent me, via UPS, two tele-jack devices to connect to my home’s central alarm panel and to a telephone junction box in order to establish an electronic connection to provide alarm monitoring services. As of today’s date, no alarm connection was ever established between my address of record and the company or its agents. My home was never connected to the company, their alarm monitoring center or to any other alarm monitoring center, by any means, electronically or other, nor at any time did a bona-fide alarm monitoring business relationship ever exist. After the receipt of those two telephone jacks devices, the company started charging my credit card for alarm monitoring services and defrauded my account in the sum total of $269.20. The company never demanded a return of their property as in a demand letter or email sent to my attention nor did they informed me that the company was going to egregiously charge me an excessive amount for holding these alarm connection devices. The $269.20 in assessed charges is totally unwarranted since the company did not provide any services to my account. I asked for a financial settlement arrangement in lieu of bringing criminal and consumer protection statute charges against the company and the company ignored all settlement requests. Further, I am still in possession of the company’s alarm monitoring devices and need a RMA number from the company to return this property for proper credit. All good faith attempts to return this equipment to the company were rejected by the company. The latest telephone call to the company resulted in them telling me to keep their equipment since it has no market value. These unfair and deceptive acts and practices are, in my opinion, are to be declared unlawful by the State of Washington’s RCW Chapter 19.86 Sections 010 to Section 920 that reads, in part, as follows:
“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful………the Attorney General may restrain prohibited acts against any person to restrain and prevent the doing of any act herein prohibited or declared unlawful".

Because of this unfair or deceptive acts or practices, I suffered injury or loss of money as follows: $269.20 that was debited from my credit card account without my permission and consent. I incurred 45 hours of research, data compilation, and writing time in drafting this Complaint, telephone calls to the company and the Attorney General of the State of Washington. Therefore, I hereby demand the following relief from the Defendant: Upon return and credit of the two tele-jack devices back to the company, the company prepares a draft payment in the amount of $269.20 made payable to XX. The company’s response to this Complaint may assert many possible legal defenses, and the Plaintiff will answer those counter claims with the following: The company, referencing the company’s internal document titled the Alarm Service Terms and Conditions (hereby known as “ASTC”) may assert a possible breach of contract defense. It is my opinion there is no enforceable contract that existed at the time I placed my order with company for the reasons referenced below. Most new customers do not have prior knowledge that the ASTC document even exists. It is found under a link on one of the many company’s web sites, some 50 web sites in total. During the new customer sign-up process, a company representative orally requests that a new customer agree to the ASTC terms on a recorded telephone line. During the new customer signup process, the specific Alarm Service Terms and Conditions are never discussed with the new customer including, and most importantly, the company’s egregious provisions regarding the financial assessments charged under the cancellation and early termination provisions, not to mention other charges assessed against the customer for non-compliance to stated terms. These provisions set forth in the ASTC are unilaterally one-sided to the advantage of the company and are designed to be detrimental to the rights of an unknowing consumer who is under the impression that he/she has entered into a no contract, cancel anytime contract with an alarm monitoring company. No other professional alarm monitoring company in America has such outrageous and unreasonable business terms and conditions. There is no more self-evident indictment against the company than to parse the company’s own Alarm Service Terms and Conditions agreement, clause by clause, line by line, notably Clause 7, which states, in part, reads: ”any service…selected by Subscriber (customer) is NON REFUNDABLE regardless of reason what so ever, even if system is converted or not.” I am not sure what this Clause 7 means? I guess this company is re-writing contract law for the totality of the American jurisprudence system. Nowhere in the ASTC does the company have a performance standard or duty to perform. The company, has at its sole option, has defined their rights under a self-imposed discretionary performance standard, to provide or not, satisfactory alarm monitoring services, and the Subscriber, under the terms of the ASTC, has waived their rights to demand performance, see Clause 9, Hold Harmless Clause. This controlling agreement is deliberately crafted to favor the company unilaterally, over and above the Subscriber (customer) rights and at the sole cost of the Subscriber. The customer has little to no redress to these provisions, as defined in the most current copy of the ASTC. No competent court of jurisprudence would ever uphold this contract as valid or enforceable, in any part, for a legitimate lawful merchant providing alarm monitoring services, generating revenue in multiple states, over the general public telephonic infrastructure, is duty bound to disclosure a customer’s rights per state and local laws. The company’s ASTC Clause 12 shifts the professional liability from the company to the customer to meet and adhere to any “government restrictions, permits, conditions or regulations covering the system” The company never gave me guidance as to inquire with my local Fire Rescue Services Department as to what are the exact fire alarm regulations germane to my address. ADT, a national security alarm vendor, assumes the responsibility of adhering to local laws and regulations during the course and use of their professionally installed burglar/fire alarm systems. The company’s ASTC agreement smacks of fraud in the inducement by the company, a flagrant contradiction of consumer rights under state laws for consumer contracts concerning alarm, data, and telephonic services and a deliberate abolition of consumers’ inconvertible rights as otherwise mandated by consumer protection laws nationwide. This company has extorted thousands of dollars unjustly from their own customer base over many years of negligent operation by means of predatory and deceptive business tactics. This company, and their corrupt management, is a clear danger to the citizens of the State of Washington and to the public at large. Further, the management of this company, with clear criminal intent and for direct personal gain and enrichment, has over many years maliciously extracted thousands of dollars from unsuspecting consumers whose only mistake was to contact this company for inexpensive alarm monitoring services. According to the hundreds of customer complaints found on the Internet, which translates into thousands of dollars of illicit gain to the company’s principals, the company, on every level, has failed to demonstrate even a minimum level of care and to enforce any standard of fair business practices as an established industry provider of alarm monitoring services. Post customer sign up, the innocent customer unknowingly is trapped in the company’s deceptive terms and conditions agreement and his/her only recourse is to concede to the company’s onerous demands for unjust money paid for services never rendered or, at worst, never intended to be rendered. Alternatively, customers should assert against the company a breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This law is to impose such a term in a contract to prevent abuses of power and to encourage ethical behavior. The company, in its present form and operations, violates public trust and under minds the creditability standards of good and ethical business practices that our economy operates on. Customers should contact their local law enforcement authorities and the State of Washington’s Office of the Attorney General for relief under prevailing state consumer protection laws. The Seattle Office of the State of Washington’s Office of the Attorney General is leading an investigation against the company, and their telephone number is: (206) 446-6684. Respectfully submitted,