Members of the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan who paid a $100-a-month tobacco surcharge in the six years before October 22, 2026 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging ADT charged the surcharge without the cessation alternative and full refund federal wellness-program rules require. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. ADT LLC has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A participant in ADT’s employee health plan filed a proposed class action against ADT LLC on October 22, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is Roth v. ADT LLC, No. 9:26-cv-81436, and it is assigned to Judge Ed Artau. It is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.ADT, the home and small-business security company based in Boca Raton, Florida, sponsors the plan and serves as its administrator. The complaint says the plan had more than 12,000 participants for the plan year that ended December 31, 2024. It alleges that ADT charged employees, and any enrolled family members, who reported using tobacco or nicotine an extra $100 a month for medical coverage, $1,200 a year, without meeting the federal conditions that make such a surcharge lawful. ADT had not filed a response on the docket as of October 26, 2026.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
How ADT’s Surcharge Worked, According to the Complaint
The complaint quotes ADT’s Employee Benefits Guide, which it says is distributed at open enrollment. According to the complaint, the guide required every employee to certify their tobacco and nicotine user status and said that users would pay an additional $100 per month for medical coverage. The complaint says the $100 was deducted from the plaintiff’s paychecks each month on top of the regular premium.The guide also said members could avoid the surcharge by completing a tobacco cessation program and reporting it to EmployeeAccess, and that the surcharge would then be removed on a go-forward basis. The complaint says the cessation program has been offered through StayWell since 2021.
The Federal Rule Behind the Case
Under ERISA Section 702 and the matching provision of the Public Health Service Act, a group health plan generally cannot charge one member more than another based on a health factor such as tobacco use. Federal wellness-program regulations carve out an exception for a surcharge tied to a wellness program, but only if the program meets specific conditions. Among them, the plan must offer a reasonable alternative standard, such as a cessation program, give the same full reward to anyone who satisfies it, mention that alternative in all plan materials describing the surcharge along with a statement that a personal physician’s recommendations will be accommodated, and let members qualify at least once a year.The 2013 regulations give an example of what “full reward” means: if a member of a calendar-year plan satisfies the alternative on April 1, the plan must provide the discounts for January, February and March as well. The complaint relies on that example to argue that a surcharge removed only going forward does not qualify.
What the Complaint Says Was Missing
The complaint alleges three problems with ADT’s program. First, members who completed the cessation program had the surcharge removed only from that point on and were not refunded the surcharges already paid that plan year, so the full reward was unavailable. Second, the plan materials did not tell members that a personal physician’s recommendations would be accommodated or that the program could be waived if a doctor found it medically inadvisable. Third, according to the complaint, no member who disclosed tobacco use could avoid the surcharge for the first month of the plan year, because the program could not be completed before enrollment.The complaint also alleges, on information and belief, that ADT kept the surcharge money in its own accounts rather than using it to offset premiums, expenses or claims for the plan. ADT has not responded to these allegations in court.
The Claims and What the Lawsuit Asks For
The complaint asserts three counts:- Imposing a discriminatory tobacco surcharge in violation of ERISA Section 702 and Public Health Service Act Section 2705.
- Failing to give the required notice of a compliant reasonable alternative standard in the plan materials.
- Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Sections 404 and 406, brought on behalf of the plan.
It asks the court to certify the class, order ADT to reimburse everyone who paid the surcharge during the class period, order disgorgement or restitution, declare the surcharge unlawful, bar ADT from collecting it until it complies with ERISA, require an accounting, make the plan whole for any losses and grant other relief, including removal of the fiduciary. None of the allegations has been tested in court.
Who Is in the Proposed Class
The proposed class is participants in and beneficiaries of the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan who paid the surcharge in the six years before the complaint was filed, with the class period running through the date of judgment. The complaint excludes ADT; its officers and directors, holders of 5% or more of its equity and their spouses and children; the plaintiff’s lawyers; and the judges on the case and their families. The class exists only as a proposal until a court certifies it, and its definition can change as the case proceeds.What Happens Next
As of October 26, 2026, the docket shows the complaint, a corporate disclosure statement and attorney admission filings, and no response from ADT. ADT will have the opportunity to answer or move to dismiss. The complaint was filed by Milberg, PLLC. There is no settlement, fund or claim form, and money would become available only through a settlement or judgment, which would come with its own court-approved notice and claim process.Other Tobacco Surcharge Cases
Similar suits have been filed against other large employers, including the Mondelez tobacco surcharge lawsuit, the Waffle House tobacco surcharge lawsuit and the Whataburger tobacco surcharge lawsuit. A case against Casey’s General Stores ended in a $5.1 million settlement; how one case resolved does not predict the outcome of another. This lawsuit is separate from any data breach claims involving ADT customers.Questions
What is the ADT tobacco surcharge lawsuit about?
Roth v. ADT LLC, filed October 22, 2026 in federal court in Florida, claims ADT charged employees and enrolled family members who reported tobacco or nicotine use an extra $100 a month for medical coverage under the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, and that the surcharge did not meet the federal rules that allow such charges only as part of a compliant wellness program. ADT has not been found liable.
Who is covered by the proposed ADT tobacco surcharge class?
The complaint proposes a class of participants in and beneficiaries of the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan who paid the tobacco surcharge in the six years before the October 22, 2026 filing, with the class period running through the date of judgment. ADT, its officers and directors, large shareholders, the plaintiff’s lawyers and the judges on the case are excluded. No class has been certified.
What does the lawsuit say was wrong with ADT’s tobacco cessation option?
According to the complaint, ADT’s benefits guide said completing a tobacco cessation program would remove the surcharge only on a go-forward basis, so members who finished the program mid-year were not refunded the surcharges already paid that year. The complaint also says the materials did not state that a personal physician’s recommendations would be accommodated, and that no member who disclosed tobacco use could avoid the first month’s surcharge.
Is there an ADT tobacco surcharge settlement?
There is no settlement, fund or claim form. The case was filed October 22, 2026, ADT had not responded on the docket as of October 26, 2026, and no class has been certified. Money would become available only through a settlement or judgment, which would come with its own court-approved notice and claim process.
Is this related to the ADT data breach case?
The two are separate. The tobacco surcharge lawsuit concerns the health plan ADT offers its own employees. It has no connection to data breach claims brought by ADT customers, and being covered by one case has no bearing on the other.
Sources
- Class action complaint — Roth v. ADT LLC, filed October 22, 2026
- Court docket — No. 9:26-cv-81436 (S.D. Fla.) (CourtListener)
- Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans — final regulations, 78 Fed. Reg. 33158 (June 3, 2013)
