Arlo's 'End of Life' Storage Policy Violates Consumer Fraud Laws, Says User

Security camera company Arlo Technologies made false and misleading representations when it took away security camera features customers paid for, alleged a class action Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Michigan.

Arlo markets its security cameras as sold with seven days of cloud recordings included free, said the complaint, showing a photo of the box touting the benefit. But the company took away security camera features customers paid for by eliminating seven-day cloud storage that had been included in the price, said the plaintiff, citing a January story from The Verge.

The home security company characterized the process as the “End of Life” stage for various cameras, positioning it as part of its “commitment to delivering the highest performance in smart home security.” Models that had cloud storage removed included ones that were less than three years old, said the complaint, saying most of the affected models are still operational and used by customers. Consumers expected cloud storage as part of their purchase of a higher priced camera and didn’t expect the feature to be revoked, it said, giving a starting price of $75.

A security camera is “not a disposable device” because it's physically installed at consumers’ homes, and they expect it to remain there “indefinitely,” or until it can no longer function, said the complaint. Arlo camera owners could use local storage connected to the cameras, but many don’t own the base unit that enables that capability, and local storage doesn’t allow users to view recordings remotely, the complaint said.

Plaintiff Lonn Rider of Saint Joseph, Michigan, bought Arlo cameras and base stations, including in 2019, for their unlimited, seven-day rolling cloud storage and online monitoring at no additional cost, said the complaint. Rider was informed his Arlo devices will no longer get cloud storage and firmware updates unless he subscribes to Arlo’s subscription service at $10-per month, per camera. He wouldn't have bought the products, or paid as much, if he had known he would be charged for cloud storage later, he said.

The plaintiff claims violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and state consumer fraud acts, plus breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent representation, fraud and unjust enrichment. He seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing Arlo to “correct the challenged practices,” plus an award of costs and legal expenses.