Court Decertifies Acura RL Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal appeals court has decertified a class action lawsuit claiming the optional Collision Mitigation Braking System for the Acura RL did not work as advertised.

The 9th Circuit in Pasadena vacated a judge’s certification of the class action lawsuit last week, ruling that California law does not cover a nationwide class of consumers.

American Honda Motor Co. offered the Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) with the Acura RL as part of an optional $4,000 technology package. Honda advertised the system as being able to detect the presence of other cars and automatically applying the appropriate amount of braking force, which would “make rear-end collisions less common and… minimize the consequences of collision.”

According to the Acura RL class action lawsuit, however, Honda neglected to tell consumers that the braking system’s three separate stages overlap, and that the system may not warn drivers in time to avoid an accident and that it shuts off in bad weather. The class action lawsuit, filed in California, alleged unfair competition and false advertising.

U.S. District Judge Valeria Baker Fairbank certified a nationwide class that included all consumers who purchased the Acura RL equipped with the Collision Mitigation Braking System between 2005 and 2008.

Honda appealed the certification, arguing, among other things, that California’s consumer protection laws do not apply in other states. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit agreed and vacated the certification.

“Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that each class member’s consumer protection claim should be governed by the consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction in which the transaction took place,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court.

The panel also found that the class was “overbroad,” as it should have included only those consumers who learned about the brake system from Honda’s allegedly misleading marketing campaign.

“The relevant class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading,” Gould wrote. “The relevant class must also exclude those members who learned of the CMBS’s allegedly omitted limitations before they purchased or leased the CMBS system.”

The case is Michael Mazza, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-07857-VBF-JTL.