It's not every day an MDL transferee dismisses the entire litigation on the pleadings. Too often their job is viewed as assembling a document depository and presiding over copious amounts of discovery. But some cases are just meant to die with the pleadings -- even where there are enough of the cases to warrant creating an MDL.
Judge Dickinson Debevoise has served in the District of New Jersey for nearly 30 years, and for almost half of that time he has been the court's senior member. Thus, it should come as no surprise that he, as an MDL transferee judge, exhibited no reticence whatsoever in dismissing a consolidated class action complaint on the pleadings where the statements that formed the bedrock of the litigation were obvious puffery.
In In re Toshiba HD DVD Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 2009 WL 2940081 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2009), the plaintiffs alleged that Toshiba had misled customers by not disclosing that it was going to throw in the towel in the high-def DVD format war it was waging against Sony's Blu-ray technology. They claimed that months, if not years, before the company's decision to discontinue making its HD DVD players, the company knew that most of the Hollywood studios had embraced Sony's technology and that it was just a matter of time before Toshiba would be forced to abandon the field to Blu-ray, much as Betamax abandoned the field to VHS. Plaintiffs alleged that, had they known this fact, they would not have paid a premium price above ordinary DVD players to buy Toshiba's HD DVD players. They alleged 4 causes of action: (1) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of express and implied warranties, and (4) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), refusing to credit plaintiffs' legal conclusions or other "threadbare recitals of a cause of action." Rather, it demanded factual allegations, and found the plaintiffs' complaint lacking.
In analyzing the New Jersey CFA, the court looked first to the affirmative acts that were pled, namely, "(1) representing that HD DVD offered the best of high-definition television and DVD; and (2) representing that HD DVD was a format for today, tomorrow, and beyond, and that Toshiba was committed to supporting the HD DVD format into the future." Id. at *9. The court held that these were not actionable misrepresentations of fact, but rather were mere puffery, i.e., subjective statements of opinion. In so holding, the court was mindful of how widely publicized the war between the HD DVD and Blu Ray formats was:
It defies logic that a consumer would believe, based on the tag line "For Today, Tomorrow and Beyond" that Toshiba was committed to producing HD DVD Players indefinitely, particularly given the well-publicized format war with Blu-ray, wherein both Sony and Toshiba were trying to capture the next generation DVD market.
Id. at *10. The court concluded that the complaint failed
"to allege sufficient facts to claim that an 'ordinary' consumer -- who they admit would have been aware of the format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray -- would have expected to remain in the market indefinitely regardless of the implications of doing so. On the contrary, the numerous articles referenced in the [complaint] provide support for the notion that the struggle to capture the next generation DVD market was seen as a winner-take-all battle.
Id.
Plaintiffs also asserted two basic "omissions" that Toshiba failed to warn consumers about: (1) that "major motion pictures would not be released on HD DVD," and (2) that Toshiba planned to withdraw its support from HD DVD technology by exiting the market. The court once again relied upon the many articles describing the format war between Sony and Toshiba, which "was characterized as a battle which would result in only the 'winning' format continuing in the marketplace." Id. at 12. The court said that it "defies logic" that Toshiba's potential market withdrawal could have been concealed in the face of such articles.
Besides puffery, the court held that the New Jersey CFA claim failed because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts under Rule 9(b) to establish an ascertainable loss and causation; they failed to plead where they bought the players, how much they paid, how much ordinary DVD players cost, and whether plaintiffs were ever exposed to the alleged misrepresentations and made their decision because of those misrepresentations.
With respect to the unjust enrichment count, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead it adequately because they got exactly what they paid for: a DVD player that played HD DVDs at a higher quality than ordinary DVDs. The court noted that Toshiba did not control the fact that movie studios opted for Blu-ray technology, and it relied on the fact that the format war was well-publicized.
With respect to the express warranty claim, the court held that the statement "Today, Tomorrow and Beyond" did not create an express warranty and was, in fact, puffery. Similarly, on the implied warranty claim, the court noted that for an implied warranty of merchantability to be breached, the product actually has to be defective or not be fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. The complaint does not allege that the players fail to work, but merely that third parties have stopped providing new DVDs in that format. Thus, it does not allege a breach of implied warranty claim.
Finally, the court held that because there was no implied warranty claim under state law, there could be no Magnuson Moss claim under federal law.
Judge Debevoise's opinion is important not only for its recognition that the statements at issue were mere puffery, but also because it recognizes the context in which consumers were making their choices. Where the format war was obvious and consumers could be expected to pay attention to it in making their selection, any basic statement in support of the superiority of that technology could not be actionable. The court refused to impose on a company fighting for the survival of its product line a legal duty to broadcast to consumers (and competitors) that it was considering exiting the market in a period of months.
