McVetty v. TomTom North America, Inc.

Background

Francis McVetty sued TomTom North America, Inc., individually and on behalf of a proposed class. He alleged that TomTom marketed navigation devices as including “Lifetime Maps,” leading consumers to pay more to avoid replacing their devices. McVetty alleged that TomTom later changed the map service by offering individual map zones and that the changes made the devices less useful. He claimed that he purchased a device in 2012 because of the “Lifetime Maps” promise.

The amended complaint asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and trespass to chattel. TomTom moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Claims and analysis

The court first ruled that McVetty abandoned his express-warranty, implied-warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims by failing to address TomTom’s arguments against those claims. The court therefore dismissed those claims.

For the New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, the court explained that McVetty had to plausibly allege a consumer-oriented transaction, deceptive or materially misleading conduct, and injury caused by that conduct. The court found that the amended complaint still did not provide the full context of the product label on which McVetty relied, making it impossible to determine whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled by the word “Lifetime.”

The court also relied on McVetty’s allegation that the January 2018 announcement said devices with Lifetime Maps were not affected. Because McVetty alleged that he bought his device with Lifetime Maps, the court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly show that his device had lost access to updates. The court further found that the complaint did not plausibly allege an injury. It dismissed the claims under §§ 349 and 350.

For the trespass-to-chattel claim, McVetty alleged that software updates used unnecessary space on his device and reduced its condition, quality, and value. The court found that McVetty’s allegations showed he had consented to receive the updates through an active subscription. The court also found that he did not adequately allege when the updates were transmitted or how they specifically impaired the device. Alleging only that the software occupied more space was, in the court’s view, at most harmless interference and not an actionable injury.

Leave to amend and disposition

McVetty requested permission to file a second amended complaint. The court denied that request because he had already amended once after receiving notice of the pleading deficiencies, and he did not identify facts that another amendment would add to cure them.

The court granted TomTom’s motion to dismiss and dismissed McVetty’s amended complaint with prejudice. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, terminate the motion, and close the case.