Opinion ID: 2641133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kesling’s Deception Claims.

Text: Kesling’s claim alleges two separate forms of deception. One is civil and the other is quasicriminal, but both counts allege that it was deceptive to call the car either a “Sporty Car” or a “Great Value,” since it was unsafe to drive or otherwise use as expected for an ordinary passenger car. We address her civil claim first, though our analysis of her quasi-criminal claim is similar because we find the issue of “puffing” dispositive of both.
Kesling’s purely civil claim relies on the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA). The DCSA is a remedial statute and “shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its purposes and policies” of protecting consumers from deceptive or unconscionable sales practices. I.C. § 24- 5-0.5-1 (2007 Repl.). It is a “deceptive act” for a “supplier” like Hubler to make certain “representations as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction”—including, so far as relevant here, that it “has . . . performance, characteristics, . . . uses, or benefits it does not have which the supplier knows or should reasonably know it does not have.” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-3(a)(1) (emphasis added). But even when a seller’s failure to disclose known problems is sufficiently deceptive to be actionable on grounds such as fraud, it is not actionable as a “deceptive act” because a nondisclosure is not a “representation” of any fact. Lawson v. Hale, 902 N.E.2d 267, 273–74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Here, Kesling argues, and the Court of Appeals majority agreed, that “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” constituted an implied representation of fact—specifically, that the car was “a good car for the price” and therefore “that, at a minimum, it [was] safe to operate.” Kesling, 975 N.E.2d at 374. Kesling argues that the actionability of implied representations of fact under the DCSA is an issue of first impression, while Hubler claims that Berghausen v. Microsoft Corp. is controlling, and excludes implied representations from the ambit of the DCSA. 765 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. We agree with Kesling that the issue is open, because Berghausen did not address its merits, but essentially found the issue waived for lack of cogent argument. Id. at 598 (stating that the plaintiff “does [not] offer argument explaining why Microsoft’s ‘implicit repre- 5 sentations’ would fit within the [DCSA] definition of deceptive acts”). Yet this case does not offer an opportunity to address implied representations of fact, as it might if Kesling’s claim were based on the ad’s representation that the car had cruise control, but the system did not actually work. Instead, we find it dispositive that Hubler’s statements were merely “puffing”—statements of unverifiable opinion—and not representations of fact at all. Indeed, by requiring a representation of fact, the DCSA looks to the same criterion that distinguishes an actionable warranty from non-actionable “puffing,” which makes breach of warranty cases instructive. For example, calling a diesel truck “road ready” is “an express affirmation of fact,” exposing the seller to liability when the engine block cracks two weeks later and renders the truck inoperable. Wiseman v. Wolfe’s Terre Haute Auto Auction, Inc., 459 N.E.2d 736, 737– 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). By contrast, “statements of the seller’s opinion, not made as a representation of fact”—such as claiming a product “is the best”—are “simply puffing which does not create an express warranty.” Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1078, 1082 (Ind. 1993) (emphasis added), abrogated on other grounds by Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947, 958–59 (Ind. 2005). Put another way, puffery consists of “empty superlatives on which no reasonable person would rely,” or “meaningless sales patter,” All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir. 1999)—what Learned Hand called the “kind[] of talk which no sensible man takes seriously, and if he does he suffers from his credulity.” Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Mfg. Co., 248 F. 853, 856 (2d Cir. 1918). Rispens involved both puffing and representations of fact, and illustrates the difference between them. There, watermelon seeds were labeled as “top quality seeds with high vitality, vigor[,] and germination.” 621 N.E.2d at 1082. But they turned out to be contaminated with bacteria, which caused a blight that ruined that year’s crop for the farmer who planted them. Id. at 1080–81. The farmer sued the seed grower, arguing that the label’s statement created a warranty and that the contamination breached that warranty. Id. at 1081–82. We concluded that “top quality seeds” was “a classic example of puffery” because it “contains no definitive statement as to how the product is warranted or any assertion of fact concerning the product, but is merely the opinion of” the seller. Id. at 1082–83. But “high vitality, vigor[,] and germination” could constitute a warranty, because it was “a promise that the seeds will perform in a certain manner,” not merely the seller’s opinion. Id. at 1083. 6 Here, each part of “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” can reasonably be taken only as puffing, akin to “top quality” in Rispens, and not as a representation of any fact. Whether a car is “sporty” is a subjective assertion of opinion, not fact, commonly applied in advertising to anything from Porsches to pickup trucks. Moreover, much like Judge Friedlander, we believe the term refers to a car’s styling or design, not its drivability, Kesling, 975 N.E.2d at 376 (Friedlander, J., dissenting)—who would dispute that an old MG roadster or Ford Mustang is a “sporty car,” even if it is totally un-roadworthy and needs complete restoration? “Sporty” (unlike “road ready,” Wiseman, 459 N.E.2d at 737–38) simply cannot reasonably be ascribed any significance as a representation of a car’s state of repair or drivability. Similarly, “Great Value Price” cannot reasonably be understood to have any greater significance than the comparable terms “great price” or “priced to sell.” Reasonable buyers cannot expect a seller to admit their price is “significantly inflated,” and therefore cannot take seriously an assurance that the price is a “bargain,” “below market,” or otherwise a “Great Value.” Both terms, whether read together or in isolation from each other, are mere puffery as a matter of law. Since puffing is merely a statement of opinion, Rispens, 621 N.E.2d at 1082–83, it cannot be a representation of fact—and thus, cannot be “deceptive” under the DCSA. The trial court correctly entered summary judgment for Hubler on this issue. B. Crime Victim’s Relief Act Damages for Criminal Deception. Kesling’s other deception claim is quasi-criminal. She argues that Hubler’s ad constitutes criminal deception—“disseminat[ing] to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive,” I.C. § 35-43-5-3(a)(9)—and that she is entitled to treble damages and other civil remedies under the Crime Victim’s Relief Act, I.C. § 34-24-3-1, because she has “suffer[ed] a pecuniary loss as a result of a violation of” the criminal deception statute. (An actual criminal conviction is not required for recovery; a claimant “merely must prove each element of the underlying crime by a preponderance of the evidence.” Klinker v. First Merchs. Bank, N.A., 964 N.E.2d 190, 193 (Ind. 2012).) But like the DCSA, the criminal deception statute also depends on a “representation” of some fact, by requiring consideration of “not only representations contained or suggested in the advertisement . . . , but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material facts in 7 the light of the representations.” I.C. § 35-43-5-3(b) (emphases added). Our “puffing” conclusion therefore carries just as much force here as it does to the DCSA—that because “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” expresses Hubler’s puffed opinion, rather than representing any objective fact, it cannot be a basis for a criminal deception claim. (If anything, that conclusion applies even more strongly here, because unlike the liberal construction given to the DCSA’s remedial provisions, criminal statutes are narrowly construed, Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 872 (Ind. 2009)—as is the Crime Victims’ Relief Act, which is also “a punitive measure,” Klinker, 964 N.E.2d at 195.) The trial court was correct to grant summary judgment to Hubler on this issue as well. C. The Harm of Finding “Puffing” Deceptive. While deceptive advertising is certainly detrimental to the public, treating these “puffing” statements as actionable representations would have undesirable consequences as well. Construing either “Sporty Car” or “Great Value Price” as a representation of fact is at best a double inference—first, taking the ad to “impl[y] that the Eclipse was a good car for the price” (as opposed to simply being inexpensive), and second, inferring from the first inference that the car was “thus, at a minimum, safe to operate.” Kesling, 975 N.E.2d at 372. Allowing a deception claim to be based upon such a double inference is problematic under both the civil and criminal statutes. First, we recognize that the DCSA must be liberally construed, but only so far as its purpose of “protect[ing] consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales acts,” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-1(b) (emphasis added). It does not extend to protecting consumers from themselves. Yet that is essentially what Kesling seeks—not merely for suppliers to anticipate what consumers might infer from an advertisement itself (which, again, is the implied-representation question we reserve for another day), but to further anticipate what consumers might then secondarily infer from their own inferences. Such a requirement would exceed the stated purpose of the statute, and demand an unrealistic degree of intuition about consumers’ subjective perceptions. The double-inference concern is an even greater problem under the criminal deception statute. A criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague “if its prohibitions are not clearly defined,” or “its terms invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.” Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296, 299 (Ind. 1998) (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972) and Kolender v. Lawson, 461 8 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). It is difficult to imagine how an advertiser could “know” an advertisement is deceptive as the statute requires, I.C. § 35-43-5-3(a)(9), if that inquiry requires them to “know” what inference upon inference (and perhaps further inference beyond that, and beyond that again) any given member of the public might draw. Finally, the Court of Appeals’ approach would significantly impede legitimate advertising. The majority observed that “‘Sporty Car at a Great Value Price’ goes beyond a bare ‘1996 Mitsubishi Eclipse for $2981,” and that if Hubler had “merely listed the vehicle’s specifications and features, Kesling likely would not have a viable case.” Kesling, 975 N.E.2d at 372, 374. But advertising need not be limited to a product’s “name, rank, and serial number” in order to have a safe harbor against civil or criminal liability. Cf. Passmore v. Multi-Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 810 N.E.2d 1022, 1028 (Ind. 2004) (expressing concern that “declaring employers liable for negligence in providing employment references will lead universally to employer reluctance to provide any information other than name, rank, and serial number”). While advertisements may not be deceptive, they need not refrain from any expression of the seller’s opinion, either. Hubler’s “puffing” simply is not the stuff of a deception claim.