Legal Brief: False Alarms Are Your Problem Too
Key Highlights
- False alarms carry legal weight: Courts have established that alarm companies hold a duty of care covering equipment selection, proper installation, and pre-activation testing.
- Arming modes like Stay and Night intentionally disable motion detectors to reduce false alarm risk, and installers are justified in preserving those defaults even when customers push back.
- Customer education, enhanced verification, and AI-assisted monitoring are the industry's best tools for closing the gap between security effectiveness and real-world human behavior.
This article originally appeared in the May 2026 issue of Security Business magazine. Don’t forget to mention Security Business magazine on LinkedIn or our other social handles if you share it.
A plague. A scourge. These are words used to describe the prevalence of false alarms in the security industry. These are not my words, but the words of an expert witness hired by a plaintiff in an alleged alarm failure case against one of my clients. I knew the expert earnestly felt this way about false alarms, and so do I.
However, the expert did not adopt this opinion in our case. Instead, he wrote about it in a separate publication years before. For the case, this opinion – although true – did not fit the plaintiff's narrative. So, the expert had to pretend that false alarms were of minimal concern and distance himself from his prior opinions.
In reality, false alarms are a significant problem in the security industry and have been for many years. This is why the industry takes steps in the manufacturing, design, installation and monitoring of alarms to reduce the risk of false alarms.
Take the traditional monikers used for arming modes – Stay, Away, and Night. The reason that a motion detector is not armed in the Stay and Night modes is to prevent false alarms. While the Stay and Night modes can be used whenever the customer prefers (including when the customer is away), they are generally intended to be used when the customer is in the premises.
An armed motion detector in an occupied premises – particularly a small apartment – creates an intolerable risk of false alarms. So, an installer would be justified in not disturbing these default settings, even when a customer asks for something different.
False alarms are not a limited concern. Even opposing expert witnesses have acknowledged as much. The industry knows false alarms are a problem, and that knowledge comes with an obligation to act.
In some circumstances, usually in a low-traffic area such as a basement or another remote area within a premise, it may be appropriate to program a motion detector to be active in these modes. Some places (like small apartments) have no low-traffic areas, so an installer must take that into account.
Some jurisdictions impose monetary fines for false alarms. Others disregard alarms or assign them a low priority. This can undermine the effectiveness of the alarm system.
Courts in various jurisdictions have held that alarm companies owe a duty of care to their customers and, in some cases, to the broader public. This duty encompasses the selection of appropriate equipment for the environment in which it will be deployed, proper installation techniques, and adequate testing before a system goes live.
Most alarm service agreements impose express responsibilities on the provider to ensure that systems meet applicable industry standards, including language acknowledging the installer's responsibility to minimize false alarms.
Legal Obligations Only Go So Far
If you want to live in an impenetrable fort, you'll give up some freedom in return. Most people do not live that way. That means designing and installing systems that allow for movement and allow for user error. That means customer education, enhanced verification, use of artificial intelligence, and other promising initiatives.
False alarms are not a limited concern. Even opposing expert witnesses have acknowledged as much. The industry knows false alarms are a problem, and that knowledge comes with an obligation to act.
About the Author
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq.
Timothy J. Pastore Esq., is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department. Before entering private practice, he was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and Attorney with the DOJ. [email protected] • (212) 551-7707
Meet Timothy J. Pastore
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is the newest columnist to join the Security Business magazine family. He is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department.
Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. As a JAG, in particular, Mr. Pastore was legal counsel to the Air Force Security Forces and Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Mr. Pastore has represented some of the largest companies in the security industry, including Protection One, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Altice, Mediacom, IASG, CMS and others. He regularly provides counsel on risk management, contracting, operations, licensing, sales practices, etc. Mr. Pastore also has served as lead counsel in courts throughout the country in dozens of litigation matters involving the security industry.
Among other examples, Mr. Pastore led the successful defense at trial of cable giant Comcast in a home invasion case in Seattle, Washington. The case received significant press attention and was heralded by CVN as a top-ten defense verdict.
Mr. Pastore is a graduate of Bucknell University and Boston College Law School.
Reach him at (212) 551-7707 or by e-mail at [email protected].