Ford Complaint.Pdf

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 4 II. JURISDICTION ................................................................................................. 2 5 III. VENUE ............................................................................................................... 3 6 IV. PARTIES ............................................................................................................ 3 7 A. Plaintiff ..................................................................................................... 3 8 B. Defendant ................................................................................................. 5 9 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................. 5 10 A. Introduction of MyFord Touch ................................................................ 5 11 B. Description of MyFord Touch ................................................................. 7 12 C. MyFord Touch Has Been Plagued with Serious Defects ...................... 11 13 D. The TSBs and Warranty Extension ........................................................ 12 14 E. Similar Experiences and Complaints by Consumers ............................. 16 15 F. Fallout From the MyFord Touch Problems ........................................... 22 16 VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................. 24 17 VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .................................................................................... 27 18 A. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class .............................. 27 19 COUNT I: (VIOLATION OF MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT) ................................................................................................................. 27 20 COUNT II: (BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY) .................................. 29 21 COUNT III: (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS 22 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) ................................................................ 30 23 COUNT IV: (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY) .................................................................................. 31 24 B. Claims Brought on Behalf of the California Class ................................ 32 25 COUNT V: (VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION 26 LAW) ................................................................................................................ 32 27 COUNT VI: (VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT) ............................................................................................ 34 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- i 010388-11 625188 V1 1 VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................. 36 2 IX. JURY TRIAL DEMAND ................................................................................. 36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-ii 010388-11 625188 V1 1 Plaintiff, The Center for Defensive Driving, individually, and on behalf of all 2 others similarly situated, alleges as its Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, the 3 following: 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 1. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other current 6 and former owners or lessees of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles equipped with a 7 “MyFord Touch,” “MyLincoln Touch,” or “MyMercury Touch” system1 (“Class 8 Vehicles”). Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief for Defendant Ford Motor 9 Company’s (“Ford”) conduct as alleged in this Complaint. 10 2. Ford introduced MyFord Touch in certain of its vehicles beginning with 11 model year 2011. As used herein, MyFord Touch consists of three Liquid Crystal 12 Display (LCD) interfaces that are powered by Ford “SYNC,” an operating system 13 that was designed by Microsoft. MyFord Touch allows the vehicle owner to, among 14 other things, operate the audio systems in the vehicle, use the GPS navigation 15 technology, control the climate systems in the vehicle, and operate a Bluetooth 16 enabled mobile telephone or mobile device. In addition to operating these various 17 functions, MyFord Touch is also responsible for operating certain safety systems in 18 the vehicle. For example, when the system detects that the vehicle has been involved 19 in a collision, the system will dial 9-1-1 and connect the vehicle to an emergency 20 services provider. 21 3. Ford has touted MyFord Touch as a revolutionary feature in its vehicles, 22 a feature for which it charges a significant premium. However, since its launch in 23 2011, the system has been an unmitigated disaster for Ford. Indeed, the Internet is 24 replete with complaints from Ford owners who have experienced significant 25 problems with the system. Many vehicle owners complain that, among other things, 26 the system freezes up, stops working, the screen “blacks out,” the system fails to 27 1 In this complaint, MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch, and MyMercury Touch 28 will be collectively referred to as “MyFord Touch.” CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -1 010388-11 625188 V1 1 respond to touch commands, and fails to connect to the user’s mobile phone. Simply 2 stated, the system fails to work as intended or as promised by Ford. 3 4. Ford’s customers are not the only ones who recognize that the system 4 has been a failure. Shortly after the launch of the system in 2011, Ford’s CEO, Alan 5 Mulally, in numerous interviews, admitted that MyFord Touch suffers from 6 numerous problems. Ford has also recognized that it has a problem insofar as it has 7 issued three purported “updates” which it claimed corrected the issues plaguing the 8 system. However, none of these updates have corrected the issues that the Plaintiff 9 and the other Class members have experienced with their MyFord Touch systems. 10 Indeed, according to Ford’s own technical support team, there is no fix for the 11 problems experienced by Plaintiff and the other Class members. 12 5. As a result of Ford’s unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business 13 practices, and its failure to disclose defects in the MyFord Touch system, owners 14 and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered losses in money and/or property. 15 6. Had Plaintiff and the other Class members known of the defects in the 16 MyFord Touch system at the time they purchased or leased their vehicles, they 17 would not have purchased or leased those vehicles, or would have paid substantially 18 less for the vehicles than they did. 19 7. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other members of the 20 proposed Class, brings this action for Defendant’s statutory and common law 21 violations, including its violation of applicable consumer protection and deceptive 22 trade practice statutes and Defendant’s breaches of its warranties to Plaintiff and the 23 other Class members. 24 II. JURISDICTION 25 8. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 26 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the proposed class consists of 100 or more 27 members; the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -2 010388-11 625188 V1 1 interest; and minimal diversity exists. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction 2 over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3 III. VENUE 4 9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a 5 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in 6 this District. Plaintiff, The Center for Defensive Driving, leased a Class Vehicle in 7 this District, and Ford has marketed, advertised, sold, and leased the Class Vehicles 8 within this District. 9 IV. PARTIES 10 A. Plaintiff 11 10. The Center for Defensive Driving (“CDD”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 12 corporation headquartered in Torrance, California. On or about February 22, 2013, 13 CDD acquired a 2013 Ford F-150 Lariat equipped with a MyFord Touch system 14 (VIN# 1FTFW1ETXDFB37760), which it leased from Power Ford, an authorized 15 Ford dealership located in Torrance, California. Unknown to CDD at that time was 16 that the MyFord Touch system in its F-150 Lariat is defective and suffers from 17 numerous issues including: system lockup and total system failure; periodic non- 18 responsiveness to peripheral devices (such as MP3 players and smartphones); and 19 periodic non-responsiveness to voice commands. Indeed, between February 22, 20 2013 and July 1, 2013, Plaintiff’s MyFord Touch unit has failed or locked up on no 21 fewer than 27 separate occasions. Defendant Ford knew about, but did not disclose, 22 the defect to Plaintiff CDD and it leased its F-150 Lariat under the reasonable but 23 mistaken belief that the MyFord Touch system would perform in a reasonable 24 manner. It did not. 25 11. At Power Ford, prior to agreeing to lease the F-150 Lariat, Plaintiff 26 inquired about the functionality and quality of the MyFord Touch system installed in 27 the vehicle. A Ford sales representative, Roland Belikow, represented to Plaintiff 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3 010388-11 625188 V1 1 that the MyFord Touch system works well, can play audio from MP3 players, 2 including Plaintiff’s Apple iPod, and connect with smartphone devices, including 3 Apple iPhones, for hands-free telephone usage as well as audio and other 4 entertainment functions. Mr. Belikow demonstrated for Plaintiff the navigation 5 capabilities of the MyFord Touch system as well as the voice command

Load more