ADT tobacco surcharge lawsuit (Roth v. ADT LLC)

A former ADT employee has filed a proposed class action saying the company's health plan charged tobacco users an extra $100 a month in a way federal benefits law does not allow. The complaint in Roth v. ADT LLC was filed on October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case No. 9:26-cv-81436.

The lawsuit does not argue that employers can never charge tobacco users more. It argues that ADT's version fails the conditions federal rules attach to that kind of charge, mainly because people who completed the plan's quit-smoking program only stopped paying going forward and did not get back what they had already paid. These are allegations. ADT has not answered in court, and no judge has ruled on them.

There is no settlement, fund or claim form. The case matters now to current and former ADT plan members who paid the surcharge since October 2020, because the proposed class reaches back six years from the filing date.

The plaintiff is Lisa Roth of Aurora, Colorado, a former ADT employee. The complaint says she was covered through ADT's plan by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama and had $100 automatically deducted from her paychecks each month as a tobacco surcharge, on top of her regular premium.

The defendant is ADT LLC, which the complaint describes as the sponsor and plan administrator of the ADT Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, with principal offices at 1501 Yamato Road in Boca Raton, Florida. The complaint says the plan had more than 12,000 participants in the plan year ending December 31, 2024. ADT's parent, ADT Inc., trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Its 2025 annual report describes a security, interactive and smart home business for residential and small business customers, about 6.1 million monitoring subscribers and about 12,200 employees at the end of 2025. ADT reported 2025 revenue of $5.129 billion.

Roth is represented by Milberg PLLC.

According to the complaint, ADT's Benefits Guide asks employees to certify whether they use tobacco or nicotine and says that if they do, they "will pay an additional $100 per month for medical coverage." The complaint says the charge applies when the employee or an enrolled family member reports tobacco use.

The guide, as quoted in the complaint, also says: "you can avoid this surcharge by completing a tobacco cessation program and reporting the completion to EmployeeAccess. The surcharge will be removed on a go-forward basis." The complaint says the program was run by StayWell as of 2021.

The plaintiff reads "go-forward" to mean that a participant who completes the program midyear stops paying from then on but does not get the earlier months back. The complaint also says no one who reports tobacco use can avoid at least one monthly charge, because the program cannot be completed before the charge starts.

The complaint makes three claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA):

• Count I says the surcharge is a premium difference based on a health factor that does not qualify for the wellness program exception, because the plan does not give the full year's reward to everyone who meets the alternative standard.
• Count II says plan materials do not give the required notice, including a statement that a participant's own doctor's recommendations will be accommodated.
• Count III says ADT breached its duties as a plan fiduciary. It alleges, on information and belief, that ADT kept the surcharge money in its own accounts instead of using it for the plan, which the complaint calls self-dealing.

The complaint relies on the federal wellness program rule, adopted in June 2013 and effective for plan years starting in 2014. Among other conditions, that rule requires a chance to qualify at least once a year, the full reward for everyone who meets a reasonable alternative standard, and notice in plan materials that the alternative exists.

ADT's side is not yet on the record. Class Action Pulse found no public statement from ADT about the case as of October 26, 2026, and no answer or motion had been filed.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Ed Artau. The court's notice says the parties may consent to have Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard handle it. A summons to ADT LLC was issued on October 23, 2026, and a lawyer from Milberg asked to appear on the plaintiff's behalf the same day.

The court has not decided whether the surcharge is lawful, whether ADT kept the money, or whether a class can go forward. No class has been certified.

The proposed class is participants in and beneficiaries of the ADT plan who paid the surcharge in the six years before the complaint was filed, with a class period running through judgment. The complaint estimates the class at "at least hundreds, but likely thousands" of people.

It excludes ADT, its officers and directors, owners of 5% or more of its equity and their spouses and children, the plaintiff's lawyers and the judges. The exclusion sentence also lists "employee," which would sit oddly with a class of employees. The court may need to clarify that wording. Until a class is certified, the definition is only a proposal.

If you paid ADT's tobacco surcharge, gather pay stubs or benefit statements showing the $100 deduction and the dates. Note whether you completed the cessation program, when you reported it and whether payments stopped afterward. Former employees should keep any benefits guides or enrollment confirmations they still have.

You do not need to do anything to remain in the proposed class. You can contact Milberg or a benefits lawyer of your choice with questions.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks the court to order reimbursement of surcharges paid, disgorgement or restitution, an accounting, a declaration that the surcharge is unlawful, an order stopping it, removal of fiduciaries or other relief to make the plan whole, attorneys' fees and interest. These are requests, not awards. Any money would depend on a ruling for the plaintiff or a settlement approved by the court.

• October 22, 2026: complaint filed.
• October 23, 2026: summons issued to ADT LLC.
• November 6, 2026: responses to the plaintiff's motion to admit an out-of-state lawyer are due.

ADT's deadline to respond depends on when it is served, which was not shown on the docket as of October 26, 2026. ERISA claims are subject to time limits that can depend on the claim and the facts. That is one reason the complaint reaches back six years.

• Tobacco surcharge: an extra health plan charge for people who report tobacco or nicotine use.
• Reasonable alternative standard: another way, such as a cessation program, for a person to earn the same reward without meeting the main goal.
• Full reward: the entire discount or surcharge waiver for the plan year, not only the months after a person qualifies.
• Fiduciary: a person or company that must manage a benefit plan in the participants' interest.
• Class certification: a court order allowing the plaintiff to sue on behalf of a defined group.

ADT is expected to answer or move to dismiss after service. A motion to dismiss would likely test whether the plan's "go-forward" design fails the federal rule and whether the self-dealing claim is pleaded with enough facts. If the case continues, the parties would exchange plan records, which could show how the surcharge money was used and how many people paid it. Class certification would come later.

This article relies on the complaint and docket, the federal rule and ADT's public filings. The Benefits Guide language is quoted from the complaint; Class Action Pulse did not review the guide itself. The claim that ADT kept surcharge money is made on information and belief. The class size and the total collected are unknown.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.