fbpx

Article Type: Lawsuit

Mercedes Benz BlueTEC Diesel Emissions Class Action Lawsuit

            The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Mercedes Benz has defective diesel engines that have an illegal “defeat device” that allows for more dirty emission during driving than during emissions testing.  These BlueTEC diesel engines are facing the same issues as Volkswagen, Audi, and many other diesel engine producers have had in the recent past and displays another reason why diesel engines may not be a legitimate substitute for gasoline.

            One plaintiff in this lawsuit, Anthony Caputo, is from Mt. Arlington, New Jersey.  In November, 2011, Caputo purchased a new 2012 Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC and still owns it to this day.  Caputo bought this vehicle for many reasons including luxury, utility, and the clean efficiency that was marketed and advertised by Mercedes.  At the time that he bought the vehicle, Caputo did not know that it was equipped with an emissions system that turned off or limited Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions during normal driving conditions and emitted many multiples of the allowed level of pollutants.  Mercedes knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the inadequate emission controls during normal driving conditions, but did not disclose such facts or their effects to Caputo.  Caputo, an informed and conscientious consumer, then purchased the vehicle on the reasonable, but mistaken, belief that his vehicle was an EPA certified “clean diesel” and would maintain that distinction for years to come.  Mercedes’s unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and leasing the ML 350 without proper emission controls has caused Caputo and other owners out-of-pocket loss, future repair expenses, and diminished value of his vehicle.

            Diesel engines are attractive to consumers because that have high low-end torque, exceptional fuel efficiency, better drivability, and more low-end power when compared to their gasoline counterparts.  These benefits come at the cost of much dirtier and more harmful emissions that contribute to ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect more than gasoline emissions.  One by-product of diesel combustion is NOx, which describes several compounds of nitrogen and oxygen atoms.  These are produced in the cylinders of diesel engines during the combustion process.  Exposure to this pollutant is linked with serious health dangers, including serious respiratory illnesses and premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects.  The United States’ EPA has enacted many regulations under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from these dangerous pollutants.

            In order to achieve a trade-off between the benefits and costs of diesels, Mercedes developed and marketed its BlueTEC lineup.  BlueTEC engines have a number of in-cylinder and after-treatment technologies to reduce emissions.  These include a diesel particulate filter and a selective catalytic reduction system.  Mercedes has marketed their system as “the world’s cleanest and most advanced diesel” that emits “up to 30% lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline.”  Mercedes recently admitted that a shut-off device in the engine management of BlueTEC diesel cars stops NOx cleaning when ambient temperatures drop below 50 degrees Fahrenheit and under other circumstances.  Low temperature testing at highway speeds produced emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions standard.  Testing at low temperatures at variable speeds produced emissions up to 30.8 times the standard.  Further testing has revealed that Mercedes BlueTEC vehicles do not meet emission standards in virtually all real world driving conditions.  Mercedes vehicles that may have a BlueTEC engine include the ML320, ML 350, GL 320, E320, S350, R320, E Class, GL Class, ML Class, R Class, S Class, GLK Class, GLE Class, and Sprinter.

            Based on the facts, plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Mercedes Bens violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, committed Breach of Contract, committed Fraudulent Concealment, and violate many other state and federal laws by marketing, selling, and lying about its BlueTEC diesel engines that had an illegal “defeat device” that allowed it to emit more pollutions than permitted by the EPA.

Iovate Green Coffee False Claim Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that Iovate Health Sciences violated California consumer protection laws by selling a variety of weight loss supplements that claim cause weight loss in a  scientifically proven manner in fact the science does not properly exist.

Iovate sells a variety of weight loss supplement including Gardenia Cambodia Plus. Gardenia Cambodia Plus Gummies, Coconut Oil, Green Coffee Bean, Matcha Green Tea Plus, Probiotics Plus Weight Loss, Raspberry Ketones Plus, Konjac Root Plus, Xendarine Core and Xendarine Ultimate.

The advertised main weight loss ingredient is “Green Coffee” extract .  Green coffee is simply coffee that has not been roasted that are therefore richer in chlorogenic acids. Some suggest that these compounds have antioxidant activities and can help one lose weight. When coffee is roasted, its chlorogenic acid content is greatly reduced.

The scientific evidence does not yet support the idea that green coffee promotes weight loss.

The complaint alleges that Iovate claimed that there were two scientific studies to support its weight loss claim.  First the complaint argues that Iovate can only point to a single study to support its weight loss claim.  Second, the scientific process and conclusions of the single study is brought into question in the complaint.  Essentially the complaint argues that there is in fact no real science to support the weight loss claims.

Keyless Ignition Class Action Lawsuit

            The plaintiffs in this case allege that many car manufacturers, including Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Honda, and others, produced and sold a defective keyless ignition system that fails to automatically turn off the vehicle after a certain amount of time in which the key is not present.  This defect has had lethal consequences because individuals have exited the vehicle after parking it in their garage without realizing that it was still running.

            In a separate lawsuit, Kimberlin Nickles filed a wrongful death action against Toyota for the death of her daughter, Chastity Glisson, who died on August 26, 2010 at the age of 29 as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning from her 2006 Lexus IS 250, which was equipped with a keyless fob.  Chastity Glisson parked her Lexus in the garage to make room for her boyfriend, Timothy Maddock’s vehicle.  She collapsed on the floor later that night.  Timothy found her body, but then he too lost consciousness.  They were both found the next day.  Chastity had already died and Timothy was in serious condition.  An investigation revealed that the carbon monoxide that killed Ms. Glisson and severely injured Mr. Maddock came from the Lexus in the garage, which had accidentally been left running due to the lack of a physical key.  This separate lawsuit clearly demonstrates the dangers associated with operating a vehicle with a keyless fob.

            One plaintiff in this lawsuit is Richard Draeger of California.  He purchased his 2011 Toyota Prius without prior knowledge of the defect.  Draeger, in part, purchased the vehicle because Toyota’s sales brochure states that “Prius is as concerned with your well-being as it is with the planet’s.”  On two occasions, Draeger inadvertently left the vehicle running even after removing the keyless fob.  On the first occasion, the car was parked outside, but on the second, it was in his garage.  He did not realize that the vehicle was running due to the quite nature of the Prius.  This defect contradicts the statement in Toyota’s brochure because one’s well-being is reduced by carbon monoxide poisoning and the planet’s well-being is diminished by additional carbon input from accidentally idling vehicles.  Draeger is now concerned about the operation of his Prius and would not have purchased it at the same price, if at all, if he was aware of the dangers surrounding keyless ignition systems.

            The car manufacturers involved in this lawsuit are Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Honda, General Motors, Volkswagen, Bentley, Mercedes-Bens, Hyundai, and Kia.  These car manufacturers often touted keyless ignition systems as being luxury and convenience options, therefore charging more for the vehicles equipped with them.  Drivers of cars equipped with this feature have to learn that the physical key is not associated with the operation of the vehicle, unlike conventional ignition systems.  The automakers listed about failed to properly consider the ramifications of eliminating the physical and psychological connection between the vehicle and physical keys.  The vehicles with a keyless ignition system are defective and unsafe because there is no basic safety mechanism that, in a case where the driver left the vehicle without turning it off, would automatically turn off the engine after a certain period of time.

            Based on the facts, the plaintiffs allege that the automakers listed above were negligent in failing to recall the ignition systems, committed unjust enrichment, violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as multiple other federal and state laws.

Kia Defective Gas Tank Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Kia Motors has manufactured and sold vehicles with defective gas tanks located beneath the rear seats that are dangerous and potentially deadly.  The gas tanks have the potential to explode and immediately engulf rear occupants in flames, which in one incident in Texas led to the deaths of three passengers.

            One plaintiff in this case, Constance Sims, is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas who owns a 2013 Kia Soul Sport.  She chose the Soul Sport in part because she wanted a safely designed and manufactured vehicle.  She saw many advertisements for Kia vehicles before she purchased the Soul, and, although she does not recall the specifics of the advertisements, she does recall that safety and quality were consistent themes across the board.  These different representations and advertisements from Kia about safety and quality influenced her decision to purchase the Soul.  Sims did not learn about the gas tank defects until June 2013.  Had she known of the defects before purchasing the car, she would have either purchased it at a lower price or not purchased it at all.  At this point, Sims and other owners are plagued with an unsafe car that will cost them money to repair and to cover the diminished value of the vehicle.

            The vehicles affected by this lawsuit have gas tanks that are located immediately underneath the rear passenger seats and the trunk, and the interior of the cars are not adequately protected.  This location poses a risk to occupants and for this reason the tanks must be shielded or attached to the underside of the vehicle with reinforcing straps.  Kia’s vehicles have gas tanks that are unshielded and instead of being strapped to the car, they are bolted.  The failure to strap gas tanks to vehicles increases the risk that the gas tank will shift or dislodge and ignite in a major collision.  The service cover for the fuel pump increases the risk of harm even more.  It is made out of plastic and is located immediately underneath the rear seat cushion.  It is unreasonably dangerous to locate the fuel pump here and use a plastic service cover, particularly given the other defects mentioned above.  This location and the use of a plastic fuel pump service cover increases the likelihood that fire would penetrate the rear cabin through the plastic service cover like a “blow torch” in a major collision.

            These gas tanks make the affected Kia vehicles unreasonably dangerous.  The defects place passengers in the rear seats above veritable gas bombs that have the capability to explode and immediately engulf rear occupants in flames.  As mentioned above, there has already been at least one accident involving a defective Kia Soul in Texas that resulted in three deaths.

            Based on all the facts, the plaintiffs in this case allege that Kia’s failure to disclose the gas tank defects constitutes a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, a violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a violation of the California False Advertising Law, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent concealment.

Keyless Ignition Class Action Lawsuit

            The plaintiffs in this case allege that many car manufacturers, including Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Honda, and others, produced and sold a defective keyless ignition system that fails to automatically turn off the vehicle after a certain amount of time in which the key is not present.  This defect has had lethal consequences because individuals have exited the vehicle after parking it in their garage without realizing that it was still running.

            In a separate lawsuit, Kimberlin Nickles filed a wrongful death action against Toyota for the death of her daughter, Chastity Glisson, who died on August 26, 2010 at the age of 29 as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning from her 2006 Lexus IS 250, which was equipped with a keyless fob.  Chastity Glisson parked her Lexus in the garage to make room for her boyfriend, Timothy Maddock’s vehicle.  She collapsed on the floor later that night.  Timothy found her body, but then he too lost consciousness.  They were both found the next day.  Chastity had already died and Timothy was in serious condition.  An investigation revealed that the carbon monoxide that killed Ms. Glisson and severely injured Mr. Maddock came from the Lexus in the garage, which had accidentally been left running due to the lack of a physical key.  This separate lawsuit clearly demonstrates the dangers associated with operating a vehicle with a keyless fob.

            One plaintiff in this lawsuit is Richard Draeger of California.  He purchased his 2011 Toyota Prius without prior knowledge of the defect.  Draeger, in part, purchased the vehicle because Toyota’s sales brochure states that “Prius is as concerned with your well-being as it is with the planet’s.”  On two occasions, Draeger inadvertently left the vehicle running even after removing the keyless fob.  On the first occasion, the car was parked outside, but on the second, it was in his garage.  He did not realize that the vehicle was running due to the quite nature of the Prius.  This defect contradicts the statement in Toyota’s brochure because one’s well-being is reduced by carbon monoxide poisoning and the planet’s well-being is diminished by additional carbon input from accidentally idling vehicles.  Draeger is now concerned about the operation of his Prius and would not have purchased it at the same price, if at all, if he was aware of the dangers surrounding keyless ignition systems.

            The car manufacturers involved in this lawsuit are Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Honda, General Motors, Volkswagen, Bentley, Mercedes-Bens, Hyundai, and Kia.  These car manufacturers often touted keyless ignition systems as being luxury and convenience options, therefore charging more for the vehicles equipped with them.  Drivers of cars equipped with this feature have to learn that the physical key is not associated with the operation of the vehicle, unlike conventional ignition systems.  The automakers listed about failed to properly consider the ramifications of eliminating the physical and psychological connection between the vehicle and physical keys.  The vehicles with a keyless ignition system are defective and unsafe because there is no basic safety mechanism that, in a case where the driver left the vehicle without turning it off, would automatically turn off the engine after a certain period of time.

            Based on the facts, the plaintiffs allege that the automakers listed above were negligent in failing to recall the ignition systems, committed unjust enrichment, violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as multiple other federal and state laws.

Toms of Maine Natural Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that Tom’s of Maine violates state consumer protection laws by labeling its toothpaste and deodorant and other personal care products as “Natural” when in fact the products contain synthetic chemicals.

Tom’s of Maine made its name by offering all natural personal care products to consumers.  It was bought by Colgate-Palmolive Company in 2006 and now operates as a division within the large company.

This is not the first class action against the company.  In 2015, Tom’s of Maine settled a class action based upon similar facts.  Specifically, Tom’s of Maine agreed to pay 4.5 million for labeling similar (indeed at times the exact same as the new lawsuit) products as natural when in fact those products had synthetic ingredients.  A consumer had to make a purchase before September 23, 2015 in that first case.

This new lawsuit seeks redress for Tom’s of Maine’s labeling practice since that first settlement.  At base, it alleges that most of the products claimed are labeled as “natural” but in fact each contain highly processed or synthetic ingredients including all or a combination od some of the following synthetic ingredients:  sodium lauryl sulfate, potassium nitrate, xylitol, sorbitol, glycerin, xanthan gum, and/or sodium cocoyl glutamate.

Hyundai Tiburon Airbag Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Hyundai produced and sold a defective side airbag system (SAS) in their Tiburon model from 2003 to 2008.  Hyundai placed the Tiburon side impact sensor in the incorrect location on the crossmember, a remote location where it is unable to recognize many types of real world crashes in which an air bag would prevent death or serious injury.  Hyundai was aware of both the danger presented by the crossmember location and the superiority of the B pillar location.

            One plaintiff in the case, JoAnn Anderson, is an adult resident and citizen of Windsor Mill, Maryland.  She purchased and owns a 2008 Hyundai Tiburon.  Anderson chose the Tiburon in part because she wanted the protection afforded by properly designed and manufactured side air bags.  Anderson did not learn of the defect in the SAB system until shortly before this suit was filed.  Had Hyundai disclosed the defect, she would not have purchased her Tiburon or would have paid less than she did.

            Side airbags are intended to protect the head and thorax of front seat occupants in moderate to severe side collisions when serious injury or death is likely to occur without an air bag.  The SAB system includes the airbag modules, side impact sensors, and an airbag control unit (ACU).  The side impact sensor gathers information about a crash and transmits the information to the ACU.  The side impact sensor location is an important part of the SAB system design, and, to perform effectively, the sensor must be located in a position that enables it to detect a crash and transmit that information to the ACU within milliseconds of impact.  The location of the side impact sensor on the Hyundai Tiburon makes it unable to recognize many types of real world crashes in which an air bag would prevent death or serious injury.  A side impact sensor located on the B pillar instead would allow the vehicle to receive strong signals in more kinds of crashes, giving the operator and passengers more safety. 

            Hyundai’s developmental and design testing performed in 1999 for the generation of Tiburons launched in 2002 demonstrated to Hyundai the danger of placing the side impact sensors on the crossmember and the superiority of the B pillar location.  This danger was later confirmed during calibration work performed by a side impact sensor manufacturer.  Despite knowing that the SAB system was defective, Hyundai intentionally and uniformly failed to disclose this defect to plaintiffs and other owners.  There have been numerous accidents in which the side airbags in Tiburons have failed to deploy as a result of the defective SAB system and this failure is absolutely a significant safety that exposes drivers and passengers to serious injury or death.

            Based on all the facts, the plaintiffs in this case allege that Hyundai’s failure to disclose the defective SAB system is a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, a violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent concealment.

General Motors Ignition Switch Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that more than 12 million General Motors vehicles contain defective ignition switches that can lead to the vehicles stalling.  More specifically, the ignition switch is located very close to the drivers’ knees and can inadvertently move from “run” to “accessory” or “off” at any time during normal and proper operation of the vehicle.  This lawsuit covers failures that have taken place in vehicles from before and after Old GM was bailed out.  New GM has promised that its new vehicles will be safer, more efficient, and culturally important.

            The dangers of the key being moved are far reaching.  When this happens, the car may stall, lose power steering and braking, lose airbag capabilities, and be more susceptible to collision.  Although there is some chance of vehicles stalling during typical driving conditions, the likelihood is increased when driving on bumpy roads, when keys are heavy, and for drivers with particularly long legs. 

            There are three issues that cause the ignition switch to be defective.  The first is a faulty “detent plunger,” which allows drivers to inadvertently move the key from “run” to “accessory.”  This problem impacts cars recalled March, June, and July of 2014.  Second, some of the ignition switches are placed low on the steering column, allowing drivers’ knees to easily bump the key.  Third, and arguably most negligibly, when the ignition switch moves from “run” to “accessory” or “off,” the vehicle’s power is disabled.

            Both Old GM and New GM failed to thoroughly conduct an industry standard Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) on the impacted ignition switches before and after their design.  FMEA is an engineering risk assessment technique used in design and failure analysis to define, identify, and eliminate known and/or potential failures, problems, and errors from the system and design before they reach the consumer.  Old GM and New GM both failed to conduct theses system-wide FMEAs, an egregious violation of industry standard engineering practices.

            The following vehicles are impacted by this lawsuit:

  • 2005-2010 Chevy Cobalt
  • 2006-2011 Chevy HHR
  • 2007-2010 Pontiac G%
  • 2007-2010 Saturn Sky
  • 2003-2007 Saturn ION
  • 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice
  • 2005-2009 Buick Lacrosse
  • 2000-2014 Chevrolet Impala
  • 2000-2005 Cadillac Deville
  • 2006-2011 Cadillac DTS
  • 2006-2011 Buick Lucerne
  • 2000-2008 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 2003-2014 Cadillac CTS
  • 2004-2006 Cadillac SRX
  • 1997-2005 Chevrolet Malibu
  • 2000-2005 Pontiac Grand Am
  • 2004-2008 Pontiac Grand Prix
  • 1998-2002 Oldsmobile Intrigue
  • 1999-2004 Oldsmobile Alero
  • 2009-2010 Chevy Cobalt
  • 2010-2014 Chevy Camaro
  • 2008-2013 Buick Enclave
  • 2009-2013 Chevrolet Traverse
  • 2008-2013 GMC Acadia
  • 2008-2010 Saturn Outlook
  • 2005-2006, 2008-2009 Pontiac G6
  • 2008-2009 Saturn Aura

Based on all the facts, the plaintiffs allege that GM, amongst other activities, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraudulent concealment, implied warranty violations, negligence, fraud by concealment of the right to file a claim against Old GM in bankruptcy, and unjust enrichment. 

Hyundai Kia Fuel Economy Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Hyundai and Kia sold automobiles that were marketed to have a higher fuel economy than they actually can achieve and that the EPA ratings were incorrect.  They further allege that Hyundai and Kia adopted, promulgated, represented, and benefited from the inaccurate fuel efficiency numbers.

            One of the plaintiffs in this case, Nicole Marie Hunter, owns a 2012 Hyundai Accent.  Her vehicle was marketed as having a fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon in the city and 40 miles per gallon on the highway (30/40).  According to Hyundai Motor America’s announcement, the 2012 Hyundai Accent’s fuel economy is subject to at least a three-percent downward adjustment.  Therefore, Hunter’s Accent actually has a fuel economy of 29.1/38.8.  One of the reasons that Hunter purchased her vehicle was because of the advertised fuel efficiency, figures that Hyundai and Kia misrepresented.  Hunter, as well as the other plaintiffs, seek relief for the injuries sustained by the incorrect fuel economy ratings.  These include the extra money for fuel and the diminished value of the vehicles.

            The EPA requires that all new cars, SUVs, and light-duty pickup trucks have fuel economy information displayed in a similar manner.  This practice has been in place since the 1970s and ensures that consumers have an avenue to compare vehicles.  Since 2006, the EPA requires that during the testing, different conditions such as high speeds, quick accelerations, air conditioning use, and cold temperatures are incorporated so that the EPA fuel economy matches what consumers would experience on the road.  Since 2011, heavier SUVs and vans have also had to have fuel economy displayed.

            Part of the EPA testing method requires “coastdown” tests.  This is when a vehicle is brought to high speeds on a straight road and then the time it takes to reach a stop while coasting in neutral is measured.  Forces that would stop the vehicle include weight, aerodynamic drag, and friction from the tires.  The fuel economy discrepancies were largely the result of procedural errors during “coastdown” testing at the companies’ joint testing operations in Korea.  The methods were not meeting the EPA’s requirements and were insufficient in design, procedure, content, execution, and/or completeness. 

            Between 2011 and 2013, Hyundai manufactured, marketed, and sold at least eight models of Hyundai that contained flawed MPG estimates.  Likewise, between 2011 and 2013, Kia manufactured, marketed, and sold at least five models that contained inaccurate MPG estimates.  Not only did the two companies promote the fuel economy of their vehicles to the public, but there is significant evidence showing that the companies were aware of the discrepancies.

             Based on all the facts, the plaintiffs in this case allege that Hyundai and Kia violated federal law with their testing methods or presentation of EPA ratings, conducted an unlawful business practice or act with its inaccurate statements, breached express warranties, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and were unjustly enriched.

Fiat Chrysler VGP Dealership Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Fiat Chrysler (FCA) has engaged in and continues to engage in a performance driving program dubbed “Volume Growth Program” (VGP) in which dealers that sell higher volumes of vehicles can attain a VGP status.  The VGP program provides dealerships subsidies on each and every new motor vehicles sale that other dealerships cannot attain and has led to many dealers falsifying sales reports.  This unfair competition scheme sows a “pattern of racketeering activity” and has allowed to company to used false sales numbers to increase its stock as well as invest in conspiring dealerships.

            Once dealers take part in Fiat Chrysler’s volume growth program or VGP they are provided subsidies on each and every new motor vehicle sale, meanwhile, dealers who choose not to participate in the VGP do not enjoy the kickback. According to the suit, certain dealers who are a part of the VGP have reported 85 false new vehicle delivery reports and receive tens of thousands of dollars as “illicit reward” for their collusion in Fiat Chrysler’s nationwide scheme.  The VGP program is arbitrary and capricious due the fact that Fiat Chrysler is strong-arming its dealers to achieve sales numbers that are untrue and not clearly defined.  If they do not reach VGP levels, the level increases 20% the next month, further encouraging dealers to submit false sales reports, which keeps the VGP level relatively deflated.  Dealers are also rewarded for “earn and turn” practices.  This is when Fiat Chrysler rewards dealers selling a particular model with more of that model, at the expense of other dealerships.  This encourages false reporting to obtain better vehicles.   Fiat Chrysler further encourages false reports by rewarding local managers with monetary and quarterly bonuses which are directly related to reported vehicle sales numbers.  These sales reports have been used to encourage investment into the company.

            The plaintiffs in this case, Napleton’s Arlington Heights Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram and Napleton’s Northlake Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram are two Fiat Chrysler dealerships in Illinois that do not participate in the VGP.  Dealership owners who choose not to participate in the program are not eligible to get into a “bonus round” in which incentives to dealers significantly increase, according to the complaint.  They are also not eligible for Chrysler’s “earn and turn” program in which dealers who sell a large amount of a make and model vehicle receive more of that vehicle.  Because the plaintiffs do not engage in falsified reports, they cannot say that they sell more desirable models, so in turn they receive less desirable vehicles. 

            Based on all the facts, the plaintiffs allege that Fiat Chrysler committed a “pattern of racketeering activity,” violated the Clayton Act, violated the Robinson-Patman Act, violated the Federal Automobile Dealer’s Day in Court Act, and violated 815 ILCS 710/4(b).