Intro:
The Time for Us Sunday Feature offers a space to reflect, expand, and dive deeper than we can in a thread—providing the context, clarity, and perspective where 280 characters simply can’t capture.
Last week, I wrote about how I got here. It was personal, reflective, and a bit raw. I said that this was the right example and declared A Time for Us—has arrived.
This week, I’ll take a deeper dive into the interactions that I have had with ADT since mailing the letter on May 16, theorizing what ADT was trying to accomplish, and what each interaction might mean in the bigger picture.
Halfway to Day 60
On May 16, I mailed ADT the formal legal demand, citing their breach of contract, warranty violations, and more. Since then, ADT has participated in the following significant events:
May 19: ADT Signed for the Letter
May 28: I received USPS tracking signature card
May 31: Call from ADT Customer Support (14 Min)
Jun 10: Call from ADT Customer Support (3 Min)
Including these four events, ADT has not provided a meaningful response—only a confirmed receipt of my letter, which I knew as of May 19th. But they did make two phone calls, 11 days apart, neither from someone in their legal department. These calls have revealed the most about their strategy: so far, it seems to be offering the illusion of progress.
Let’s use today’s Sunday Feature to think about what they are thinking.
The Call with Chance – May 31
Fifteen days after the clock started, I received a call from a representative identifying himself as 'Chance' from ADT Customer Support. (While I heard "Chance," I've since come to believe that was not his real name, so I'll use it as an alias.)
The call lasted 14 minutes and included:
A denial that my letter had been received by the legal department
A refusal to provide a case number or legal contact
Repeated attempts to redirect me to the ‘local’ office, followed by multiple attempts to assert that I had not sent my letter to the correct address, insisting I needed to mail something to Dallas.
I made it clear: this was a legal issue, not a service complaint. He claimed to be the manager. I pressed for someone with equal or greater authority over the agreement. He couldn’t provide one.
It dawned on me that Florida—where Chance was likely calling from—requires consent from both parties to record a call. (Texas is a single-party consent state, but Florida requires both.) I wasn’t fully certain what that prohibited, and since I don’t live in Florida, I wasn’t sure they had technically wronged me.
But that didn’t stop me.
I asked Chance where he was. He told me Jacksonville. I jumped.
“Florida is a two-party consent state,” I told him.
“You do not have my consent to record this call.”
And finally: “You should make sure you’re not recording this—because it will be included in my subpoena when I file this case.”
This wasn’t a real escalation. It was a delay disguised as outreach.
The call was contentious. I am satisfied with the control I took over the call to assert my position—again—and I have reflected on my tone a lot. My tone was more aggressive than I would have preferred. I interrupted more than I would have preferred. But I’ve also pondered whether that was exactly what the moment required—when someone is trying to distract, delay, or misdirect.
The Call with T – June 10
Another 11 days passed. Then I got another call from ADT Customer Support—this time from someone we’ll call “T.” (I’m fairly certain I heard the name correctly, so we’ll keep that as the alias.)
He said he was calling to let me know that ADT’s legal team had 60 days to respond to my letter. No case number. No contact information. I asked if he could email me what he told me—he said that wasn’t possible.
I let him know that he did not have my consent to record the call, and that we could figure out what that actually meant later.
Just a reminder that they still had time?
Which is exactly the kind of thing you say when you’ve done nothing else. But also—why say it at all? I told them in the letter that they had 60 days. That’s the law.
So, what was the point of the call?
For starters, it was another intentional waste of my time.
What Does This Really Mean?
To me, this is no longer a customer service issue—it’s a legal claim for damages against ADT.
And yet, while ADT has contacted me twice, neither call came from the department I directed my letter to. In other words, ADT likely still views this as a customer service issue.
But 30 days have passed, and I’ve received:
No written acknowledgment
No communication with anyone of equal authority over the agreement
No case number, no point of contact, no substance
To me, that’s not just poor customer service. That’s bad jurisprudence.
I don’t think this is a coordinated plan. I think it’s the absence of one. Maybe against someone like me, they don’t think they need one.
But that also tells me something important:
They’re not acting like a company with a strong hand.
Or at least, not one that’s given this significant attention.
I also questioned the purpose of the call from T. I know they had 60 days. So do they. So—11 days later—why call just to apologize and remind me?
The thought that kept repeating in my head was: this call was completely unnecessary… unless…
Maybe the call with Chance had gone so poorly that someone at ADT asked for a second Customer Service outbound call—to reframe what Chance said as something other than an outright rejection of my demand.
And that’s the thing with legal teams. The strongest tool they have is often telling you not to do something. So, a second touchpoint to accomplish literally nothing? That deserves extra thought.
Lawyers don’t do nothing. They do something. And the only “something” I can come up with is that Chance had been so off-base, they had to fix it.
But even then… they’d know you can’t un-ring a bell like that.
Unless they were just hoping I didn’t know?
Don’t think too hard about it—it’s a bit of a circle. But it tracks.
That led to a second important realization.
After reflecting on the call with Chance, I realized how inappropriate it was for ADT to contact me on a Saturday—with someone of lesser authority than I—just to give me misinformation. Now T had called with equally little purpose.
So, I made a decision.
If we reach a point where we must revisit the math behind my claim, I may choose to include additional time charges, based on these common standards:
Two-hour minimum per call
Time-and-a-half for after hours or weekends
These calls are not necessary. I didn’t ask for them. I’m under no obligation to answer them.
But when I do, it’s because I take communication seriously. If ADT is attempting to contact me, that could mean a formal response to the letter I sent. A settlement. A counteroffer. A correction.
So, no—this is not symbolic.
It reflects the cost of time shifted onto me through unnecessary contact—contact lacking matching authority, good faith, or purpose.
30 Days on The Clock
There are 30 more days on the timer. So far there has been no substantive engagement. This is simulated movement—meant to preserve optics, not produce resolution.
When a company calls you to say nothing of substance, they’re not reaching out. They’re trying to reset the timer without fixing the clock.
But I am unmoved. If anything, I am calmer and more focused on steering this ship.
I know what day we’re on. I know what they’ve done. And what they haven’t.
They are not confused. They are not powerless. They are not out of time. They are choosing this.
I am writing it all down.
And this is Time for Us.