Defendant's Attorney: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Stephen A. S'Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan

Description: Providence, Rhode Island consumer law lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendant on consumer protection, common law money had and received and unjust enrichment theories.

Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (hereinafter, the Complaint) alleges statutory consumer protection claims, common law money had and received claims, and unjust enrichment claims under Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas law (collectively, the Class States). Id. The Complaint alleges that Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat, and Maserati brand vehicles are marketed and distributed by Defendants through authorized dealers in every state of the United States. Id. ¶ 101. Between April 2018 and March 2022, Plaintiffs bought or leased new, model-year 2018 and later Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, or Ram vehicles from authorized dealers in the Class States. Id. ¶¶ 1, 11, 16, 21, 27, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 66, 72, 78, 84, 88, 94. At the time Plaintiffs bought or leased the vehicles, they each viewed the “Monroney sticker” affixed to their vehicle's window. Id. ¶¶ 12, 17, 22, 28, 33, 39, 45, 51, 57, 63, 67, 73, 79, 85, 89, 95. “Monroney sticker” is the colloquial term used to describe the federally mandated window sticker that must be affixed to every new vehicle sold in the United States. Id. ¶¶ 109-11.

The Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 (AIDA) requires the Monroney sticker to list, among other things, the delivery cost charged to the dealer for transporting the vehicle from the factory. 15 U.S.C. § 1232(f)(3) (mandating that a window sticker must include “the amount charged, if any, to [any] dealer for the transportation of such automobile to the location at which it is delivered to such dealer”); see also D.I. 19 ¶¶ 111-12. The AIDA also dictates that the Monroney sticker must list the manufacturer's suggested base retail price of the vehicle (MSRP), as well as separate listings for the manufacturer's suggested retail price for optional equipment attached to the vehicle when delivered to the dealer. 15 U.S.C. § 1232(f)(1)-(2).

Plaintiffs allege that, in response to the AIDA being passed in the 1950's, automobile manufacturers and dealers in the United States reduced their delivery charges. D.I. 19 ¶¶ 113-14. Chrysler, for example, reduced its “[d]estination charges” for its vehicles by as much as $74 per vehicle. Id. ¶ 114. At the same time, Chrysler raised the MSRP of its vehicles by as much as $35 per vehicle. Id. Because consumers are sensitive to changes in MSRP, the Complaint alleges that Chrysler did not increase the MSRP by the same amount ($74) and thus did not recoup the full amount of lost revenue it suffered when it lowered its destination charges. Id. ¶¶ 121-27.

However, the Complaint alleges that changed circumstances since the AIDA's passage have caused FCA to revert to increasing its destination charges again. Id. ¶ 129. In the years since the AIDA passed, Plaintiffs allege that companies like FCA have developed a better understanding of how to use surcharges to manipulate consumer behavior. Id. ¶ 130. In particular, the Complaint alleges that FCA understands that consumers are more sensitive to changes in MSRP than to changes in fixed surcharges that consumers perceive as fair, and so FCA has increased its destination charges to make additional profit without having to increase the MSRP. Id. ¶¶ 128-42. Plaintiffs also allege that the business practices of FCA have changed because dealerships now acquire vehicles on credit, paying FCA the full amount of the destination charge but only after the dealership sells the vehicles. Id. Because of this, Plaintiffs allege that FCA has been able to increase the destination charges on its vehicles without receiving pushback from the dealerships. Id. Plaintiffs conclude that this increased charge is passed on to consumers. Id. ¶ 161.

Consistent with AIDA requirements, the Monroney stickers on Plaintiffs' purchased or leased vehicles included a “destination charge” as a separate line item from the total price. Id. ¶¶ 12, 17, 22, 28, 33, 39, 45, 51, 57, 63, 67, 73, 79, 85, 89, 95. The Monroney stickers also listed the MSRP as a separate line item. Id. The Complaint alleges that the amount of each destination charge was substantially higher than the actual cost of delivering the subject vehicle to the authorized dealer. Id. ¶ 132. Plaintiffs allege that FCA charged more than the actual cost of delivery in the destination charge line item to avoid having to include that inflated charge in the MSRP line item, the charge to which customers are most sensitive when increased. Id. ¶¶ 130-32; see also id. ¶¶ 121-27.
Beeney v. FCA U.S., LLC, C. A. 22-00518-TMH (D. Del. Oct 20, 2023)

Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: