Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company

(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)

• Opposing Consumer Protection Claims When the Consumer Suffers No Injury

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will have an opportunity in this case to clarify the meaning of the injury requirement for claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G. L. c. 93A, (“Chapter 93A”).  The case is a class action involving purchasers of cars with allegedly defective outside door handles that have not actually malfunctioned in any way.  Plaintiffs allege that Ford deceptively failed to disclose the alleged defect.  In support of Ford’s position, NELF filed an amicus brief for itself and AIM  arguing that the purchase and use of allegedly misrepresented products do not alone establish injury under Chapter 93A for purposes of either an individual or a class action.  The product must also fail to perform properly during use.  NELF explained that the SJC’s decision in the case of Aspinall v. Philip Morris Co., 442 Mass. 381 (2004), involving Marlboro Light cigarettes, does not establish a rule of injury per se whenever a consumer purchases and uses an allegedly misrepresented product.   To the contrary, Aspinall involved class-wide actual injury because the plaintiffs in that case asserted that the product was designed so as not to provide the promised benefit of lower tar and nicotine to the ordinary smoker and, hence, the product allegedly failed on a class-wide basis to perform properly during use.  NELF further argued that requiring Chapter 93A plaintiffs to establish that an allegedly misrepresented product has performed improperly preserves the proper balance between the interests of businesses and consumers.  Otherwise businesses would be required to bear an unjustifiable and substantial financial burden, while consumers would be compensated for a theoretical future harm they may never suffer.  Moreover, businesses would be likely to pass the resulting costs onto the very consumers whom Chapter 93A was intended to protect.