The state of Nebraska has filed a lawsuit against a U.S.-based smart home product company over potential security risks posed by China-made security cameras it’s selling.

The 33-page lawsuit, filed by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers in Lancaster County District Court on Dec. 22, accuses Resideo Technologies Inc. and its wholesale distributor, ADI Global Distribution, of engaging in “deceptive and unfair business practices” over the sale of cameras made by Chinese surveillance equipment makers Hikvision and Zhejiang Dahua Technology.

The lawsuit points to federal restrictions on the two Chinese companies’ products, including a Pentagon designation due to their ties with China’s military, a Commerce Department ban over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and cybersecurity concerns raised by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.

The lawsuit notes that ADI “prominently displays thousands of Hikvision and Dahua products” on its website. These cameras are “vulnerable to spying from hackers and information requests” from Beijing’s intelligence entities, and marketing them as secure is deceptive, the lawsuit states.

“Nebraskans install security cameras to protect their families, homes, and businesses—not to invite hidden surveillance into the most private parts of their lives,” Hilgers said in a Dec. 22 statement.

Hilgers said his office has been reviewing companies with direct ties to China that can access Americans’ private information.

The Chinese Communist Party is “our greatest geopolitical adversary,” and ADI is “selling products that have known security risks relating to China” while telling Nebraskans that “these products are safe and that their private information is secure,” the attorney general told The Epoch Times.

Hilgers said the lawsuit was not intended to stop people from buying from ADI, but rather to allow consumers to make their purchases based on “accurate and truthful information” from the company.

Hilgers’ office is seeking to bring civil penalties and other relief for violations of Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Even though the lawsuit was filed in Nebraska, Hilgers said he hopes the case will raise awareness of the issue outside his state.

If more states get involved, “it sort of creates additional momentum for others, and this becomes a national issue,” he said.

He expressed “high confidence” in the allegations made in the lawsuit and expected the jury to see them the same way.

“We’re hopeful that we finish the job sooner [rather] than later, but we’re willing to fight it out until we get a resolution and the job is done,” he said.

In September, Hilgers filed a lawsuit against security camera company Lorex, alleging ties to the Chinese communist regime and deceptive practices.

In June, he sued Chinese online retailer Temu for alleged numerous consumer protection violations, including unlawful data harvesting and deceptive marketing.

Hilgers said that his office has been investigating issues with Dahua for months.

Some battles are quick and short, while others are “long and more arduous and take more time,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Our goal is to fight this battle, win these battles, fight more of these battles,” he said.

He hopes that over time, his office will be able to shut down what he describes as the bad operators and put more spotlight on the associated national security concerns to keep people away from them.

“It may take some time, but whether it’s a long battle or short battle, it’s one that’s worth fighting, and we'll wage it with the resources that we have available,” he said.

He said he’s “hopeful that ADI will do the right thing.”

ADI spokesperson Adrienne Zimoulis said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

“ADI is a leading wholesale distributor of security, AV, and low-voltage products, and we take the safety of our customers and compliance with all laws in all jurisdictions in which we operate very seriously,” Zimoulis told The Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times contacted Resideo for comment but didn’t receive a response by publication time.