## Facts

- Consumers and an organization brought a putative nationwide class action against an auto manufacturer over vehicles equipped with the MyFord Touch/MyLincoln Touch infotainment system.
- Plaintiffs alleged the system suffered pervasive software malfunctions (e.g., freezing, crashing, spontaneous shutdowns, and non-responsiveness) that required repeated repairs and updates.
- Plaintiffs alleged malfunctions affected or interfered with functions such as navigation, climate/defogging controls, entertainment, connectivity, and back-up camera operation, creating safety risks and driver distraction.
- Plaintiffs alleged the manufacturer had internal information showing a high rate of system problems but continued marketing the system as improving safety, convenience, and connectivity.
- Plaintiffs alleged they would not have purchased/leased the vehicles, or would have paid less, had the alleged defects and the manufacturer’s alleged knowledge been disclosed.
- Plaintiffs asserted fraud/consumer-protection claims, express and implied warranty claims (including under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), and a California “secret warranty” statute claim based on a non-public adjustment program (Campaign 12M01).
- The manufacturer moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged fraud-by-omission based on a duty to disclose known defects, particularly where safety-related concerns were alleged.
2. Whether affirmative misrepresentation claims were pleaded with the specificity required by Rule 9(b).
3. Whether express warranty claims were barred because the written warranty covered only defects in “materials or workmanship,” not design.
4. Whether warranty claims failed for lack of pre-suit notice and/or lack of vertical privity under state law.
5. Whether Magnuson-Moss claims failed due to deficiencies in underlying state-law warranty claims and failure to use any applicable informal dispute-resolution mechanism (including whether futility was adequately alleged).
6. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim under California’s Secret Warranty Law based on Campaign 12M01.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
- The court allowed many fraud-by-omission theories to proceed where plaintiffs alleged the manufacturer knew of material defects implicating safety and failed to disclose them.
- The court dismissed most affirmative misrepresentation claims for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b), except where specific statements were tied to specific plaintiffs with adequate detail.
- The court permitted some express and implied warranty claims to proceed, but dismissed others based on state-specific notice, privity, and related doctrinal limits.
- The court dismissed Magnuson-Moss claims to the extent plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead satisfaction of (or an adequately supported excuse from) any informal dispute-resolution requirement; the court found futility allegations insufficient as pleaded.
- The court allowed the California Secret Warranty Law claim to proceed only as to allegations connected to Campaign 12M01 and dismissed other secret-warranty theories.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s omission of known defects may be actionable where state law recognizes a duty to disclose and the alleged defect is material, including when plausible safety implications are alleged.
- Rule 9(b) requires fraud and affirmative misrepresentation claims to plead specific facts identifying the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the challenged statements and reliance.
- “Materials or workmanship” limitations in an express warranty do not necessarily defeat warranty claims at the pleading stage where allegations plausibly connect the malfunction to covered defects rather than purely excluded design choices.
- Warranty claims commonly require timely notice of breach, and some states require vertical privity absent a recognized exception; these requirements are applied on a state-by-state basis.
- Magnuson-Moss warranty claims generally rise or fall with the underlying state-law warranty claims and may be subject to dismissal where required informal dispute mechanisms are not used and futility is not plausibly pleaded.
- A “secret warranty” claim under California law may be stated where a manufacturer allegedly provides non-public adjustment relief (such as a repair/coverage program) without required consumer notification.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the case to proceed primarily on omission-based fraud theories grounded in alleged undisclosed safety-related defects and on selected warranty theories, while narrowing the litigation by enforcing Rule 9(b) particularity, state-law notice and privity limits, and inadequately supported Magnuson-Moss and non-Campaign 12M01 secret-warranty allegations.


In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2014)