Opinion ID: 3035381
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 25% of MSRP, 1% of MSRP .75% of MSRP, or

Text: even .5% of MSRP, or who lose Certification, as the case may be, cannot compete fairly with other dealers in their respective markets for the purchase of like products from Ford and the sale of such products to consumers; consequently, uncertified dealers who cannot compete face the constructive termination of their franchises. Plaintiffs also allege a violation of Section 13(e). Section 13(e) prohibits discriminat[ion] in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or 10 purchasers of a commodity bought for resale . . . by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms. 15 U.S.C. § 13(e). Plaintiffs claim that the benefits provided only to certified dealers under the BOP constitute “services or facilities . . . not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.” They reiterate that, because some dealers must submit to evaluation by an independent contractor while others are permitted to self-certify, certification is not available to all dealers on proportionally equal terms. Plaintiffs allege that This deliberately differential treatment dependent on Blue Oval Certification adversely affects competition because these Plaintiffs and other Ford dealers who do not receive or lose the benefits . . . cannot compete with dealers in their respective markets for the purchase of like products from Ford and the sale of such products to consumers; consequently, the dealers who cannot compete face the constructive termination of their franchises. Plaintiffs claim that Ford also violated Section 13(a). Section13(a) prohibits 11 discriminat[ion] in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition . . .. 15 U.S.C. § 13(a). Plaintiffs allege that The disparate Certification requirements for dealers coupled with a reimbursement of a 1.25% of MSRP to dealers achieving Certification eligibility prior to April 17, 2001, a reimbursement of a 1% of MSRP to dealers achieving Certification eligibility after April 17, 2001 and prior to April 17, 2002 and 1.25% prospectively; and no reimbursement to dealers who fail to achieve or lose Certification eligibility prior to April 17, 2002 or who do not enroll in the Blue Oval Program, constitute unlawful price discrimination pursuant to the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a). Plaintiffs allege further that the Blue Oval Program “discriminates among dealers by making the benefits available only to Certified dealers and their employees.” 12 The Automobile Dealer’s Day in Court Act permits dealers to bring suit against a manufacturer for “failure . . . to act in good faith in performing or complying with any of the terms or provisions of the franchise, or in terminating, canceling, or not renewing the franchise with said dealer . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1222. Plaintiffs allege that The ‘choices’ contemplated in the Blue Oval Program are facially coercive in that, to become Certified and then Recertified annually, Plaintiff dealers have committed substantial investments of time, effort, personnel and dollars (with no certainty of Certification, Recertification, or the consistency of the rewards and requirements therefor), while dealers who do not or cannot seek Certification will continue to pay significantly higher prices for their vehicles than Certified dealers. Plaintiffs allege further that “Ford has professed an intention to leverage its coercive program into a device for selecting dealers for termination, or otherwise causing them constructively or actually to fail . . ..” With respect to their state franchise law claims, plaintiffs allege that the Blue Oval Program “is an illegal means of constructive termination or attempted termination of Plaintiffs’ franchises” in violation of state franchise statutes and public policies. They allege that the BOP also violates prohibited practices provisions in state statutes and policies. Plaintiffs 13 claim that the BOP violates the statutes and policies of all states against the termination of a franchise without good or just cause. Plaintiffs also assert that Ford breached the Sales and Service Agreement. In particular, they claim that the Sales and Service Agreement does not permit either the “coercive and arbitrary control” of dealers, multi-tier pricing, or de facto termination imposed by the BOP. Plaintiffs claim that the BOP constitutes an impermissible material unilateral amendment to the Agreement. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Ford has violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing by imposing the BOP, including by imposing commitments and requirements not contemplated by the Sales and Service Agreement. Plaintiffs allege that Ford has prevented them from enjoying the fruits of the Agreement.