McVetty v. TomTom North America, Inc.

Background

Francis McVetty and Jane Doe brought a proposed class action against TomTom North America, Inc. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The opinion notes that the plaintiffs withdrew claims under California consumer-protection laws and a claim for breach of implied warranty.

The plaintiffs alleged that TomTom marketed navigation devices as including “Lifetime Maps” or “Lifetime Maps and Traffic.” They claimed that consumers paid more because of those representations, but that TomTom used an undisclosed definition of “lifetime” tied to the period during which TomTom supported a device. McVetty alleged that his device remained functional but did not receive traffic and map updates. The complaint also referred to a January 2018 announcement about service changes for certain older devices, while stating that products with Lifetime Maps would not be affected.

TomTom moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under that rule, the court considers whether the complaint contains enough factual detail to state a legally plausible claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

Court’s Analysis

New York consumer-protection claims. The court held that the claims under Sections 349 and 350 were not plausibly pleaded. First, the complaint did not say where McVetty or other consumers saw the allegedly deceptive materials or where they purchased the products. New York law requires the transaction involving the alleged deception to occur in New York; McVetty’s New York citizenship and an alleged New York choice-of-law provision were not enough.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged injury. The complaint did not identify which products were purchased, how much was paid, or what a comparable product would have cost. It also alleged that the products remained functional and did not show that the January 2018 announcement affected products with Lifetime Maps.

Third, the court held that the complaint did not provide enough detail to show that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the word “Lifetime.” The complaint did not identify the product model purchased by McVetty or other class members and did not provide the entire context of the relevant packaging. The court also noted that McVetty did not allege that his product could use an SD card to receive additional software.

Fraud. The court held that the fraud claim did not meet the heightened pleading requirement for fraud. The complaint did not specify which product was purchased, when or where it was purchased, or when and where the allegedly deceptive packaging was seen. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege that TomTom knew the use of “Lifetime” was false or misleading.

Negligent misrepresentation. The court held that the complaint did not allege the special or similar relationship generally required for a negligent-misrepresentation claim. It characterized the alleged transaction as an ordinary business transaction and found that McVetty had not alleged that TomTom possessed special expertise or unique information giving rise to a duty to provide accurate information.

Breach of express warranty. The court identified several deficiencies. The complaint did not adequately allege injury, did not identify the seller of the products, and therefore did not adequately allege that the seller received the required notice of breach. The court also found that the complaint did not clearly identify an express warranty or allege a breach, because it stated that the products had Lifetime Maps and that the January 2018 announcement did not affect such products.

Unjust enrichment. The court held that McVetty did not identify who was enriched because the complaint did not identify the seller of the products. It also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that TomTom’s gains were unjust because it had not adequately alleged consumer deception or that TomTom discontinued services it had represented would continue.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted TomTom’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all of McVetty’s claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The court stated that failure to amend on time would result in the claims being deemed dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate TomTom’s motion at ECF No. 15.