## Facts

- Michael Velez, a commercial-truck driver, bought Rand McNally TND 730 (2014) and TND 740 (2017) truck GPS devices for several hundred dollars each.
- Rand McNally marketed the TND devices as offering truck-specific routing and information useful to truck drivers, including truck-stop details and points of interest.
- The devices included a one-year limited written warranty stating they “will be free of defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one (1) year from the date of first consumer purchase.”
- Rand’s packaging and labels advertised “Lifetime Maps,” directing purchasers to terms and conditions at randmcnally.com/lifetimemaps.
- The packaging also stated that “Lifetime Maps and Traffic Everywhere” updates would be provided “as long as you own the TND™.”
- Velez alleged Rand’s online “lifetime maps” terms limited “lifetime” to a defined period tied to the product’s release (allegedly 36 months), creating tension with the “as long as you own” statement.
- Velez alleged persistent performance problems with both devices, including inaccurate or outdated maps, incorrect points-of-interest information, and routes he claimed were poor or unsafe for commercial trucks.
- He alleged Rand attempted repairs or fixes but was unable to correct the problems and did not provide the map updates that were promised.
- Velez filed a putative class action asserting Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claims, related warranty claims, consumer-protection/statutory fraud claims, and Illinois common-law claims, and he sought damages and injunctive relief.
- Rand moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and separately moved to strike the class allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether Velez adequately pleaded MMWA and related warranty theories (including a viable underlying state-law warranty breach and adequate allegations tying the claimed defects to the written warranty and other asserted warranty promises).
2. Whether Velez plausibly pleaded consumer-protection and fraud-based claims based on “Lifetime Maps” representations and alleged omissions about updates and device performance, including any heightened pleading requirements.
3. Whether Velez had Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief based on a real and immediate likelihood of future injury.
4. Whether Rand’s motion to strike class allegations should be addressed at the pleading stage given the court’s rulings and leave to amend.

## Decision

- The court granted Rand’s motion to dismiss as to Counts I–III (MMWA/warranty-based counts) and dismissed those counts without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Counts IV–VI (consumer-protection and related claims), allowing them to proceed.
- The court dismissed Velez’s request for injunctive relief without prejudice for failure to allege a sufficient likelihood of future harm.
- The court struck Rand’s motion to strike class allegations as moot, with leave to renew after any amended complaint.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must plead enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; legal conclusions and labels do not suffice.
- MMWA claims generally rise or fall with the pleaded state-law warranty theories; a plaintiff must plausibly allege an underlying breach of warranty and satisfy any statutory prerequisites applicable to the MMWA theory asserted.
- A written limited warranty confined to “defects in workmanship and materials” for a defined period does not automatically cover every alleged performance dissatisfaction; the complaint must connect the alleged defect and timing to the warranty’s scope.
- Advertising statements about product benefits (including “Lifetime Maps” and “as long as you own” language), when paired with allegedly conflicting terms and alleged nonperformance, can plausibly support consumer-fraud or deceptive-practices theories at the pleading stage.
- Fraud-based theories subject to Rule 9(b) must be pleaded with particularity, including the who/what/when/where of the alleged misrepresentation and why it was misleading.
- A request for prospective injunctive relief requires allegations of a real and immediate threat of future injury; past purchase and past harm, without more, are not enough for standing.

## Conclusion

In *Velez v. RM Acquisition, LLC*, the Northern District of Illinois granted Rand’s motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the MMWA and warranty counts (Counts I–III) and the request for injunctive relief, all without prejudice and with leave to amend, while allowing the consumer-protection and related claims (Counts IV–VI) based on the alleged “Lifetime Maps” representations and device problems to move forward; the court also struck the motion to strike class allegations as moot pending any amended complaint.


Velez v. RM Acquisition, LLC, 2023 WL 3043239 (2023)