Seeking to dismiss a putative class action alleging that it engaged in consumer protection violations, Cars.com, with headquarters in Illinois, told an Illinois federal court that it could not be held liable for any data errors with regard to metrics it provided to a car dealership.
New Hampshire car dealership G. & S. Management Corporation sued Cars.com for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA). Specifically, the dealership, which utilized the website to advertise its cars on the Internet, asserted that two of the metrics provided by Cars.com were inaccurate.
The dealership said it learned that the two metrics—the number of times a vehicle is seen by a consumer on a search results page (SRP) and the number of times a vehicle is seen by a consumer on a vehicle detail page (VDP)—were incorrect in comparison with the same metrics available through another company’s website.
Cars.com responded with a motion to dismiss the action, beginning with a jurisdictional argument. The ICFA does not have extraterritorial effect, the defendant told the court, and is applicable only when the circumstances of the disputed transaction occurred “primarily and substantially” in Illinois.
As the disputed transactions with Cars.com did not occur “primarily and substantially” in Illinois—instead taking place at the plaintiff’s New Hampshire dealership—G. & S. was precluded from seeking relief under the ICFA.
The defendant then turned to the contract between the parties. A breach of a contractual promise, without more, is not actionable under the ICFA, the defendant pointed out, and the agreement did not require Cars.com to provide the metrics at issue. The plaintiff failed to explain how, if the metrics were not part of the contract, it relied upon them as required by the statute.
Further, the contract specifically disclaimed the liability sought by the plaintiff, stating that Cars.com could not be liable for “any technical malfunction, computer or data error.” The plaintiff’s claims that the defendant breached its contracts by providing inaccurate SRP and VDP data “are plainly barred by Cars.com’s express disclaimer,” the defendant argued.
To read the memorandum in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in G. & S. Management Corp. v. Cars.com, Inc., click here.
Why it matters: To persuade the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit, Cars.com relied on multiple arguments. The defendant began with a jurisdictional contention that the alleged conduct did not fall within the reach of the state’s consumer protection law and followed that up with a line of reasoning based on its contract. Not only did the contract between the parties not require the defendant to provide the metrics under challenge, it also expressly disclaimed liability for data errors.