Ham v. Lenovo Group Ltd.

Background

Anthony Ham brought a proposed class action against Lenovo (United States) Inc. He alleged that Lenovo advertised computers on Lenovo.com with fictitious “Web Price” or “Estimated Value” figures, displayed lower “Sale Price” figures, and advertised purported savings. Ham alleged that he relied on those representations when he bought a ThinkPad T495 for $969 in June 2020. He asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Lenovo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Lenovo also submitted declarations and exhibits challenging Ham’s allegations about comparable products, prices, and his claimed injury.

Standing

The court held that Ham adequately alleged an injury for purposes of constitutional standing. Ham alleged that Lenovo’s pricing representations induced him to buy the laptop and to forgo better or less expensive alternatives. The court declined at that stage to consider Lenovo’s factual challenges concerning Ham’s product review and the prices and comparability of other products because those challenges did not contradict the theory of injury alleged in the complaint.

The court also held that Ham could pursue claims concerning similar laptop products that he did not purchase because the alleged pricing scheme and representations were substantially similar. The court stated, however, that the non-laptop products were not substantially the same and that Ham did not have standing to bring claims concerning those unpurchased products.

The court separately held that Ham lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. Ham alleged that he would not have purchased the laptop had he known the truth about the alleged discount, but he did not plead a likelihood that he would suffer similar harm again. The court therefore dismissed his request for injunctive relief for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

New York consumer-protection claims

The court dismissed Ham’s claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for failure to state a claim. Although Ham adequately alleged a constitutional injury for standing purposes, the court said those statutory claims required him to allege that he bought a product because of a materially misleading practice and did not receive the product’s full value.

The court found that Ham alleged only that the laptop was worth less than Lenovo’s purported Web Price, which he did not pay. He did not allege that the laptop was worth less than the amount he paid. The court also rejected a theory based only on losing the opportunity to make a better-informed purchasing decision. It concluded that Ham had not pleaded a legally recognizable injury under Sections 349 and 350.

Warranty claims

The court dismissed the express- and implied-warranty claims because Lenovo’s Limited Warranty barred them. The sales agreement incorporated the Limited Warranty, which stated in conspicuous, bold, capitalized language that it was the exclusive warranty and replaced other express or implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The warranty also disclaimed liability for anticipated savings.

Fraud and unjust enrichment

The court dismissed the fraud claim because Ham had failed to plead injury. It dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim as duplicative because it relied on the same factual allegations as his other claims and did not allege separate damages.

Other procedural rulings and disposition

The court did not consider Ham’s response to Lenovo’s supplemental authority because it was an unauthorized response to arguments raised in Lenovo’s reply. The court denied Lenovo’s request to strike that filing. Lenovo Group Ltd. had already been dismissed, and the court directed the Clerk to remove it from the caption.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Lenovo’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismissed the other causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6). Ham was granted leave to amend his complaint within 21 days of entry of the order.