## Facts

- Iler Group, Inc. (Fleetistics) operated as a dealer/reseller of GPS tracking devices and fleet-tracking services.
- Discrete Wireless, Inc. (NexTraq) provided GPS tracking units and related services.
- In July 2006, the parties executed a Dealer Agreement under which Iler purchased products and services from Discrete for resale to customers within a defined territory and received related dealer rights (including marketing and selling services and providing first-level support).
- The agreement had an initial three-year term and then renewed month-to-month absent written termination notice.
- Iler alleged that in December 2008 Discrete unilaterally changed pricing structures and business practices, including dealing directly with end users, in a way that allegedly impaired Iler’s ability to profit and compete within the dealer relationship.
- Iler claimed these actions breached the Dealer Agreement and also constituted deceptive trade practices under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (GUDTPA).
- Iler filed suit in February 2014 for breach of contract, later amended its complaint to add a GUDTPA claim, and Discrete moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Discrete breached the Dealer Agreement based on alleged unilateral pricing and business-practice changes affecting Iler’s dealer rights.
2. Whether the amended complaint stated a GUDTPA claim by alleging a likelihood of future harm supporting injunctive relief, as opposed to only past injury.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- The breach of contract claim survived because the complaint plausibly alleged specific contractual rights and specific conduct that could constitute a breach.
- The GUDTPA claim was dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege ongoing conduct or a likelihood of future harm sufficient to support injunctive relief, and the statute does not provide damages for past harm alone.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; conclusory allegations and formulaic element recitations are insufficient.
- Under Georgia law, a breach of contract claim requires allegations of (1) a valid contract, (2) breach, and (3) damages; identifying concrete contract rights and allegedly contrary conduct can satisfy plausibility at the pleading stage.
- GUDTPA is primarily preventive and oriented toward stopping future deceptive practices through injunctive relief; allegations of past misconduct, without a plausible likelihood of future damage, do not state a GUDTPA claim.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the contract claim to proceed because the pleadings tied alleged unilateral pricing and customer-dealing conduct to identified dealer rights under the agreement, but dismissed the GUDTPA count because the allegations described past injury without plausibly alleging a continuing threat or likely future harm warranting injunctive relief.


Iler Group, Inc. v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2015)