Car Warranty Firm Says FAC Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
A consumer’s first amended complaint for Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing against Integrity Vehicle Group and Vanguard Vehicle Armor should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, said Integrity’s motion to dismiss Monday (docket 4:23-cv-01194) in U.S. District Court…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
for Middle Pennsylvania in Williamsport. Plaintiff Zachary Fridline’s July complaint (see 2307190012) alleges telemarketing agent Vanguard Vehicle Armor placed several calls to Fridline, but it didn't allege Integrity made any calls, said the motion. Fridline alleges Integrity should be held vicariously liable for Vanguard’s alleged illegal marketing, but to demonstrate vicarious liability, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly demonstrate Integrity controlled and directed the marketing methods used by Vanguard -- or that Integrity’s actions caused Fridline to reasonably believe Integrity authorized those marketing practices, said the motion. He did neither, said Integrity. Fridline alleges that during phone calls, the caller represented to him that Integrity would provide “administrator services” for car warranty services being offered and that Vanguard gave him a sample contract, with Integrity listed as the administrator of the service contract. The allegations don’t establish that Integrity controlled and directed the marketing methods that Vanguard allegedly used, the motion said. Instead, Fridline’s allegations suggest a “possible business relationship between parties,” the motion said.