FOLLOW US

The Third Circuit on Friday refused to allow a group of vehicle buyers to revive claims that FCA US LLC unfairly inflated “destination charges” on new Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Ram models, holding that their proposed second amended complaint still fails to show a violation of 11 states’ consumer-protection laws.

A three-judge panel affirmed a trial court’s ruling that denied the plaintiffs’ attempt to amend their complaint, finding that they had not corrected the deficiencies that led to dismissal of the earlier version of their suit.

Allegations Against FCA

The proposed class, led by Perry Beeney, alleged that FCA improperly inflated the destination charge — a fee disclosed on each vehicle’s sticker price meant to cover delivery costs — for model-year 2018 and newer vehicles purchased or leased from authorized dealers between April 2018 and March 2022.

The plaintiffs originally sued FCA’s parent company Stellantis NV, but later voluntarily dismissed claims against it. They sought to represent consumers in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Panel’s Reasoning

In its opinion, the panel said the proposed amendment did not plausibly allege that the plaintiffs paid a destination fee greater than what FCA charged dealers, or that the disclosed fees were inherently unfair or deceptive. The judges noted that the fee was explicitly listed alongside the MSRP and that plaintiffs themselves acknowledged the charge represents an average cost of delivery, not the specific cost for each car.

The panel further held that plaintiffs had not shown damages, as they negotiated purchases with dealerships rather than FCA directly:

“Any number of factors could go into a dealer’s pricing, and those factors could be entirely divorced from the destination charge,” the opinion said.

Some plaintiffs, the panel pointed out, even paid less than the sum of MSRP and the destination fee after negotiating. They failed to allege that FCA’s practices prevented them from securing steeper discounts, or that FCA, rather than the dealerships, was responsible for the lower savings.

Unjust Enrichment and Other Claims

The panel also rejected unjust enrichment allegations, finding that the plaintiffs did not pay FCA directly and failed to establish that FCA held any money belonging to them. Because the transactions were with dealers, the judges concluded, the plaintiffs’ contracts did not render the fee invalid or improper.

Without plausible allegations of deceptive conduct or damages, the court said, unjust enrichment and related claims could not stand.