Copart runs an automobile auction web-site that includes “repairable” cars and trucks, i.e., junkers. The plaintiff sued for 3 alleged misrepresentations, together with:

On car webpages, Copart shows an Believed Retail Value for the motor vehicle. Plaintiff contends that this range is fake and deceptive, because it refers to a price centered on the auto owning “clean title,” instead than the salvage title the motor vehicle has, which lowers the benefit by 20% to 40%.

Copart responded:

that it offers “a platform for motor vehicle sellers to process and offer salvage title vehicles” and that all ERVs are presented to Copart by the seller of the vehicle. Copart furthermore establishes that the ERV in problem was delivered by the vendor.

The point that people source the estimates turns this into an straightforward Segment 230 conclusion. The Roommates.com workaround fails:

though Plaintiff offers proof that a valuation of the auto in dilemma centered on clear title is inherently inaccurate, there is no proof that Copart requires sellers to supply a valuation based mostly on thoroughly clean title, and indeed, the evidence is that Copart does not demand the valuation details at all.

Hence, “Considering the breadth of the immunity and the paucity of proof in the report that Copart is just about anything but a system relaying the ERV information furnished by the vendor, the Court docket should use Segment 230 immunity to the ERV representation.”

Presented that the alleged misrepresentations took spot in the auction listings, seemingly the plaintiff could not acquire gain of the HomeAway exceptions for shut auction promotions.

Case Quotation: Cohen v. Copart, Inc., 2022 Cal. Tremendous. LEXIS 53009 (Cal. Outstanding Ct. Aug. 25, 2022)

Leave a Reply