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.
