Certain amenities in a dwelling have evolved from being considered luxuries to becoming essential, exemplified by the increased reliance on technology in the home. One particular technology that has grown in popularity is the doorbell camera, which has raised questions of how much a homeowners’ association (HOA) may regulate their implementation and use. While related legal actions have been few in number, it may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There are a number of video doorbell camera companies on the market, but Ring, which is owned by Amazon, is probably the best-known. These doorbell cameras record audio and video after the motion sensor is triggered, and the owner can then hear and watch the events at their front door on their smart phone. There are various reasons that these doorbell cameras have become popular, from the convenience of knowing what is going on outside one’s home to believing that having a Ring camera will make them feel safer. However, in connection with these doorbell recordings, concerns are being raised about privacy as well, including the ability to post clips of their footage to show others in the community. See Samantha Shamhart, “The Mosaic Theory: How the Interest of Mass Surveillance and Facial Recognition Is Provoking an Orwellian Future,” Capital University Law Review, 51 Cap U.L. Rev 504 (2023).

The issue of maintaining community harmony is one of the issues that HOAs try to regulate through their own bylaws and rules. As articulated in the Third Restatement of Property, a homeowners' association has the "implied power to adopt reasonable rules to (a) govern the use of the common property and (b) govern the use of individually owned property to protect the common property." Section 6.7. When evaluating such rules under the Fair Housing Act, courts have focused on whether these HOA rules and regulations are facially neutral and whether they have an adverse or disproportionate impact on one group of residents. See, e.g., Morris v. W. Hayden Est. First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, 104 F. 4th 1128 (9th Cir. June 17, 2024). In addition, in “reviewing the reasonableness of [an HOA's] exercise of its rule-making authority, absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the [HOA]." Fields Enters. Inc. v. Bristol Harbour Vil. Assn, Inc., 217 A.D. 3d 1433 (NY App 4th Dep’t June 9 2023).

Action in the Courts
While there have been a couple of recent challenges on discrimination grounds to HOA rules about doorbell cameras, it seems that courts are allowing such rules to be enforced. In the case of Byrd v. Fat City Condo Owners Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo association was racially discriminating against her by fining her for installing a Ring camera on her condominium door based on the condo association rules regarding exterior door modifications. 2023 US Dist Lexis 208792 (WD NC Nov 21 2023). While the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court did find that there were questions of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s section 1981 claim. The court in Byrd noted that the plaintiff raised instances of some of the condo board knowing about modifications to the doors of other units, but did not “fine white residents for these violations.” The Byrd case went to trial, and on June 20, 2024, the jury found in favor of the defendants, noting that there was no discrimination, that the plaintiff had breached the contract, and that the defendant had complied with the North Carolina Condominium Act in levying fines that totaled $73,000.

In Ricks v. DMA Companies, the claim of disability discrimination focused on the alleged declination by the property management company of the plaintiff’s request, among other things, for a specific model of Ring camera. 2024 U.S. Dist Lexis 170140 (WD TX Sept. 19 2024). In the court’s September 2024 decision, which addressed issues of discovery and claims against certain defendants under the ADA, the court found that the plaintiff’s “newly discovered evidence does not demonstrate that [real estate agent defendant] owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; that it took an adverse action against Ricks based on his disability; or that it failed to make reasonable modifications that would accommodate Ricks's disability without fundamentally altering the nature of the public accommodation.” The court in Ricks has not yet ruled as to whether the denial of the request for a specific type of Ring camera was discriminatory in nature. This case is set for trial in June 2025.

Another such action is Deborah Reiner v. Dickens House II Homeowners Ass’n, et al., which was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (23-cv-10050). In the Reiner case, which seeks injunctive relief under the federal and California Fair Housing Act, one item that the plaintiff is challenging is the denial by the board of the homeowners association of her request to install a Ring camera, where the board denied the request based on “potential invasion of privacy.” The board had implemented a rule that reads: “Residents are not permitted to install or place any audio or video recording devices on the exterior of a unit, including but not limited to front and back doors and anywhere in the common areas. This includes but is not limited to video doorbells.” The plaintiff is alleging that her request for permission to have security cameras on her door constitutes a request for a reasonable accommodation based on her alleged disability. The Reiner case, which was filed in November 2023, recently settled and was dismissed by the court on November 15, 2024.

Another case involving a doorbell camera is Angelina Navarro, et al. v. Palmer Ontario Properties, LP, et al., which is pending in California State Court, San Bernardino County (CIV-SB-2400185). The Navarro case is pled as a mass action by a number of residents of the property who are alleging that the defendants “participated in a common scheme by failing to provide habitable living conditions,” including that the building “has been unsafe.” The claims against the defendants include contractual tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability and tortious breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. While most of the allegations focus on complaints about the physical building, two residents have made claims about the security on the property being unsafe. It is alleged that in connection with the building not providing adequate security, two of the residents purchased Ring cameras, but in response were served with notices to remove them. The Navarro action, which was filed in January 2024, is still pending.

Conclusion
These recently filed cases involving doorbell cameras reflect on the ongoing societal debate over privacy versus security, leading to challenges to housing providers’ right to regulate certain aspects of the residence. The residents are requesting that Ring systems be installed for their own security on the property in keeping with a growing use of such surveillance technology overall in society as it has become more widely accepted. However, some of the opposition has explicitly involved concerns about the privacy of other residents, particularly those who reside in units across the hall from residents with such cameras. This is reflected in the passage of more privacy laws, in particular with regard to the collection of biometric and electronic data. It does not appear likely that the growing use of doorbell cameras will be curbed, but how they are regulated by housing providers remains to be determined.

At the very least, housing providers that prohibit the use of doorbell cameras on their properties should ensure that the rule is applied to all residents consistently to avoid allegations of differential treatment based on residents’ membership in various protected classes.