An interesting case recently arose in the United States District Court in Connecticut. The plaintiff, who operated a manufacturing facility, hired an alarm company to provide security and surveillance services at the plant and two other facilities.

The parties allegedly executed a service agreement governing the services the alarm company was hired to provide, including a surveillance camera system that notifies human operators when it detects suspicious activity. The plaintiff alleged in its complaint the alarm company can disarm the system in which case the surveillance cameras would register activity but would not activate an alarm or notify human operators of suspicious activity.