— A Chrysler destination and delivery fee class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege Fiat Chrysler rips off consumers by making a profit from the destination charge.
California plaintiffs James Gunn and Dustin Stafford filed the lawsuit by contending FCA artificially inflates the destination charges for transporting its new Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat and Maserati brands to dealerships.
The plaintiffs own Ram trucks and both owners complain they were not allowed to negotiate the destination fees charged by FCA.
The Chrysler class action lawsuit alleges FCA charges consumers “phantom freight” because the destination charge includes hidden profit. The lawsuit alleges consumers don't understand the destination fees and the Monroney labels (window stickers) are misleading.
Chrysler has never alleged it does not make a profit from the destination fee.
FCA Destination Fee Lawsuit Dismissed
In dismissing the class action, the judge referenced the law regarding the window stickers and how the law is not to "restrict the freedom of the manufacturer to establish and announce a suggested retail delivered price for the automobile, its optional equipment, and any services to be performed by the dealer in acquiring and making ready the vehicle for sale to the purchaser."
According to the judge, the plaintiffs were completely informed of the destination charge and could have picked a different automaker for their purchase if they didn't like FCA's fees.
The plaintiffs allegedly asked the court to, "determine how much of a profit is fair or reasonable for FCA to make on the different components of its car sales," said the judge.
As for allegedly misleading consumers regarding the destination charge, the judge referenced a ruling in a similar lawsuit where it was determined, “a reasonable or average consumer would not expect the Destination Charge to exclude profit.”
"Overall, a reasonable consumer would not be misled by FCA's fully disclosed destination charge." — Judge James Donato
Judge Donato also ruled the plaintiffs, "have not plausibly alleged that FCA's conduct was unfair, fraudulent, or deceptive, nor that FCA is unlawfully or unjustly retaining money that belongs to them."
The FCA destination charge lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Gunn, et al., v. FCA US, LLC.
