Opinion ID: 2057170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scott Action

Text: Plaintiffs here, as in Goshen, collectively seek relief for acts that they allege are deceptive. Plaintiffs are consumers who subscribed to defendants' Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Internet service. Defendants are Delaware corporations with principal places of business in New York and Virginia. Plaintiffs Walter Scott, David Solomon and Eric Wu are New York residents. The remaining plaintiffsAlvarez & Co., Inc., John F. Latuperissa, Andrew Boncek and Greg Howardare out-of-state residents. In 1999, defendants initiated a significant marketing campaign to promote its DSL service. Through their Web site and various forms of print media, defendants advertised the service as FASTHigh speed Internet access up to 126X faster than your 56K modem. DEDICATEDYou're always connectedno dialing in and no busy signals, ever!    SIMPLEWorks on your existing phone line and our self-installation kit can be set up in minutes. Defendants' Web site also made representations, in the form of a customer testimonial, about the quality of the technical support services. The DSL service had a 30-day money-back guarantee, and the Internet Access Service Agreement contained several disclaimers, including a representation that the service is provided on an `as is' or `as available' basis. Plaintiffs subscribed to defendants' DSL service and were dissatisfied with its performance. They allege that, contrary to defendants' representations, the service was slow and unreliable and that customer service was woefully inadequate. Plaintiffs claim that the DSL connection rarely, if ever, approaches the high speed expressly represented by defendants. Plaintiffs further maintain that the set up in minutes self-installation kits are actually unusable by a substantial number of purchasers who are forced to wait for weeks or months to be connected. Finally, plaintiffs contend that defendants' technical support service is inadequate to support DSL service and well below the quality represented by defendants. According to the complaint, these alleged deceptions injured plaintiffs by precipitating their purchase of a service that they are not receiving and causing them to spend inordinate time attempting to resolve problems with defendants' technical support personnel. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, among other things, violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Defendants promptly moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their second amended complaint to add a claim for fraudulent inducement. Supreme Court denied defendants' motion and granted plaintiffs leave to amend, finding the pleadings sufficient to defeat defendants' CPLR 3211 motion. The Appellate Division reversed on the law, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. We granted plaintiffs leave to appeal (97 NY2d 698 [2002]). On this appeal, plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims. We now modify the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate these claims for only the New York plaintiffs.