Key v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

Gretchen Key alleged that she owned a 2008 BMW 750LI equipped with diagnostic tools. According to the second amended complaint, BMW dealerships used those tools to collect data from multiple points on the vehicle and forwarded the data to BMW. Key alleged that she experienced vehicle problems that she attributed to faulty dealership repair work. She requested the data relating to her vehicle from BMW, but BMW refused to provide it.

Key asserted a claim under section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, California’s unfair-competition law. The court had previously dismissed the claim because Key had not alleged facts showing that she lost money or property as a result of BMW’s refusal to provide the data. The court also rejected her earlier allegation that the data itself was property because, under California law as quoted in the opinion, information is not property unless some law makes it property. The court allowed Key to amend the claim.

The parties’ positions

In the second amended complaint, Key alleged that she lost money or property because the diagnostic tools in her vehicle had diminished value when BMW refused to let her retrieve all of the data. She argued that this reframed the alleged loss as the loss of value in the diagnostic tools, rather than the loss of value in the data.

BMW moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The opinion does not state BMW’s detailed argument beyond the request to dismiss the complaint.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that the amended allegations did not cure the earlier deficiency. It found that the claim remained, in substance, based on Key’s lack of access to the data. The court also noted that the second amended complaint contained no facts showing that the diagnostic tools themselves decreased in value from the time Key purchased the vehicle.

Because Key did not adequately allege the required loss of money or property, the court dismissed the claim under the applicable pleading standard. The opinion does not decide whether BMW was legally required to provide the data or whether BMW actually engaged in unlawful or unfair conduct; it resolves the case at the pleading stage.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted BMW’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the second amended complaint without further leave to amend. The opinion also notes that Key was no longer asserting a conversion claim that had appeared in an earlier complaint.