New York City Apartment Residents Sue Landlord Over New Smart Locks [Updated]

from the cutting-your-night-short-because-your-apartment-key-is-dying dept

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Latch sends the following message, clarifying that the locks at the center of this lawsuit do not require a smartphone to open (emphasis in the original):

The residents of the building in question were given keycards to access the locations where Latch was installed to specifically negate any resident needing to have a smartphone app to unlock the building’s doors. (As you likely know, keycards and key fobs have been a common method of entry for decades.) Latch is sensitive to the different preferences and routines of its users, which is why it offers users three methods of entry—residents can use the smartphone app, a doorcode, and a physical keycard. Latch is the only smart access system that provides all three of these methods.

Nothing like rushing home to put your phone on the charger only to realize you can't get into your own apartment without a charged phone. Getting into locked out of your own place: there's an app for that. Maybe the app -- and the smart lock it engages with -- works fine 99% of the time. The other 1%, however, will see you locked out, even after performing an interpretive dance with your emotionless partner.

The Software Shuffle:

If your Latch App is unlocking from too far away

1. Navigate to 'My Profile' in the left menu

2. Change the 'Unlock distance' to 'Near'

The Latch device is not unlocking when I hold my phone close to it

1. Navigate to 'My Profile' in the left menu

2. Ensure 'Hold-Near to Unlock' is on

3. If problem persists, change the 'Unlock distance' to 'Nearest'

The Hardware Hustle:

The numeric LEDs are not lighting up when I touch the Latch Lens

1. Ensure you are tapping the center of the Latch Lens to wake it up

2. Tap with the pad of your finger to ensure the Latch Lens registers your finger. Sometimes small fingers or the tip of your fingers do not register on the Latch Lens

3. Power reset the Latch device by removing the batteries or in the case of Latch R, resetting the power to the Latch R

YOUR PARTNER STARES IMPASSIVELY

The Latch Smart Lock -- pictured and detailed above -- is at the center of a recent lawsuit filed in New York. Residents of an apartment complex whose main entrance lock has been replaced with the unblinking Latch eye are suing their management for making their lives more difficult.

A group of tenants in a Hell’s Kitchen apartment complex say they are being locked out — by technology.

And now they are suing their landlord for the return of their low-tech keys to the front lobby.

“It’s ridiculous that everyone is spending all this money to go to court just to get a key,” said Mary Beth McKenzie, 72, an artist who has lived in the West 45th St. building for nearly five decades. “For 45 years I’ve had a key. And now, we can’t get keys.”

One longtime resident -- a 93-year-old man -- has decided to become a shut-in, rather than wrangle with the tech. There's still a standard lock guarding another entrance to the building, but it does not provide access to the elevator. Three flights of stairs isn't really an option, so he's chosen to forgo venturing out of the building.

In addition to limiting access to those with compatible smartphones, the new locks require tenants to sign an 84-page agreement with the manufacturer. The smart locks also notify landlords of tenants' entrances by default. This "feature" can be turned off by end users (renters), but it really seems like something that should be opt in for renters, rather than opt out.

While building owners are given plenty of leeway when it comes to security, replacing physical locks with a smartphone-dependent product isn't really the way to go. As ubiquitous as smartphones are, there are still renters who don't own one. The thing about this case is that there's still a regular lock in place. It's just that the landlord won't give tenants that prefer the old school approach keys for the lock.

The city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development had previously slapped the owners of the building with two violations for capping the keyhole on the lock to the lobby door when they introduced the technology. The violations were removed last week following a second HPD inspection. The owners removed the cap from the lobby lock, but still did not issue mechanical keys to those tenants who asked for them…

Yeah, that's not going to look good in court. The management company had a chance to make everyone happy. Instead, it chose to piss off a few tenants repeatedly.

Filed Under: apartment, keys, mary beth mckenzie, new york city, smart locks

Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement

from the i'd-like-to-rent-a-beer-please? dept

It's been a minute since we've had to cover some trademark nonsense in the beer industry. In fact, several recent stories have actually represented what might be mistaken for a clapback on aggressive trademark protectionism in the alcohol space. But, like all great things, it just couldn't last. The specific tomfoolery that has brought reality crashing down on us once again comes out of Iowa, where Confluence Brewing has filed a trademark suit against Confluence On 3rd, which is an apartment complex that does not serve or make beer.

Confluence Brewing Company on Friday filed a trademark lawsuit and motion for an injunction in Polk County District Court seeking to stop Confluence on 3rd apartments from using the name "Confluence."

John Martin, president and co-founder of Confluence Brewing, said representatives of the company have tried to have discussions with Roers Companies, the Long Lake, Minnesota-based developer of Confluence on 3rd and several other Des Moines-area properties, but felt that their complaints were "falling on deaf ears."

Those complaints appear to have centered around both companies using the word "confluence" and the potential public confusion that could cause. Which is really dumb. Because the brewery sells beer and the apartment complex rents apartments. A greater deviation in marketplaces I dare say could not be dreamed. And, yet, Confluence Brewing appears to have taken its opponent's refusal to negotiate on these invalid complaints as some sort of personal affront. After some back and forth about whether Confluence On 3rd might add the word "apartments" to the brand, it seems communication ceased. Jeff Koch, a principal at the parent company for Confluence On 3rd, had been a part of these conversations, but communication with him too was rebuffed.

Which isn't to say that Koch won't explain to the media just how ridiculous this all is.

The two companies have distinct names and operate in different business sectors, Koch said in his email to the Register. He said Confluence on 3rd has not experienced any confusion in the marketplace.

"Confluence on 3rd was named solely on the historic relevance the city was founded at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers," Koch said in his email to the Register. "It is unique to Des Moines history and should be celebrated, not solely owned and dictated by one brewing company."

This is essentially the localization of the aspect of trademark law that prevents a single company from locking up language globally. The whole point of trademark law is to prevent customer confusion within a given market, so that one brewer can't pass themselves off as another by having similar names and branding. That just isn't a concern here, given the disparity in the markets in which these two companies play. So, what got us to the point of having Confluence Brewing alleging true concern about public confusion?

Beer coasters, largely.

In April 2017, court documents show, Confluence Brewing called Roers Companies asking them to cease and desist their use of blue drink coasters promoting Confluence on 3rd at Des Moines bars.

"I just think the bar coasters just seem a little bit blatant," Kerndt said. "I mean, they were being distributed at establishments that serve my clients’ beer."

Emails between Kerndt and Koch show Confluence on 3rd had distributed all their coasters by the time of the April call and have not ordered any additional coasters since then.

Which is entirely besides the point. Just because a company puts out the tchotchke of its choice doesn't suddenly put it in a competitive situation with anyone who makes those tchotchkes. If that were the case, the tchotchke market as a whole wouldn't... you know... exist. The only other type of confusion mentioned in the article for Confluence Brewing is that apparently people's Google map skills occasionally send them to the wrong Confluence company for the wrong item. Still, that isn't the type of confusion trademark law is supposed to prevent and it's easily remedied by directing the customer to another address.

I will say that Confluence Brewing comes off as very earnest on the matter, so perhaps the folks there simply aren't aware of the intricacies of trademark law. Its legal team, on the other hand, certainly should be.

Filed Under: apartment, beer, brewing, confluence, trademark
Companies: confluence brewing, confluence on 3rd

Sued Over Twitter Message? Can You Defame Someone In 140 Characters Or Less?

from the sue-first,-ask-questions-later dept

Tom writes in to alert us that a woman in Chicago has been sued for defamation by the company that manages her apartment over a Twitter message. The message she put on Twitter read:

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

And, rather than address a concern of one of their residents, the company brought out the lawyers, and sued for over $50,000. A little investigation reveals that the woman had all of 20 followers, which makes you question just how much actual damage was done by this message.

Still, for my money, the best single paragraph/statement about Horizon Group Management has to be the following one, in the Chicago Sun-Times, quoting Jeffrey Michael, speaking for Horizon Group (and a member of the family that runs it):

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

I'm curious as to how being a "sue first, ask questions later kind of organization" meshes with having "a good reputation it wants to preserve." I'd argue that (1) suing a tenant of a meaningless tweet (and drawing much more attention to the complaint) and (2) claiming that you're a "sue first, ask questions later kind of organization" in the national media are going to do a hell of a lot more damage to any "good reputation" (if it existed in the first place) than some random woman with 20 followers bitching about mold in her apartment.

Filed Under: apartment, defamation, lawsuits, twitter
Companies: horizon group management, twitter