Last week, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss, in part, denying six of the eight claims made in a class action complaint against the automaker.

The lead lawsuit, filed in California by Virginia M. Lambrix of San Francisco, claims Tesla’s monopolistic parts and repairs practices financially burden vehicle owners. It was filed last year and later consolidated with four similar suits. Plaintiffs reside in California, Colorado, Florida, and Maryland who own or lease a Tesla.

The lawsuit claims the OEM restricts its repairs and Tesla-compatible parts by:

• • “Designing its vehicle warranties and related policies to discourage Tesla owners from obtaining parts or services anywhere other than Tesla;
  • “Designing its vehicles so that maintenance and repairs require access to diagnostic and telematic information accessible only through remote management tools exclusively accessed by Tesla; and
  • “Limiting access to its manuals, diagnostic tools, vehicle telematic data, and original equipment manufacturer (‘OEM’) replacement parts.”

Thompson threw out allegations that Tesla has violated two sections of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The act is meant to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. The plaintiffs contend that Tesla violates it by monopolizing repair services and through unlawful tying (purchasing one product conditional on buying another).

Thompson also dismissed allegations of attempted monopolization of the Tesla repair services market and monopolization of the Tesla-compatible parts market, i.e. aftermarket parts.

The judge denied Tesla’s motion to dismiss its alleged violation of the California Cartwright Act for unlawful tying “to the extent it relies on electric vehicles or parts as the tying product.” To the extent that it relies on services as a tying product, Tesla’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.

The allegation that Tesla has violated California’s Unfair Competition Law also remains to be adjudicated.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a cause of action for monopolization and unlawful tying under the Sherman Act and causes of action under the Cartwright and California UCL,” Thompson wrote.

Tesla has denied all of the allegations and argued that the plaintiffs “fail to plausibly allege any cognizable anti-trust market, that Tesla has monopoly power in any relevant market, that Tesla conspired with Tesla-approved collision centers in violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, or any actions that constitute anti-competitive conduct.”

The plaintiffs’ first consolidated amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend based because they had not “established that Tesla repair services and Tesla-compatible parts are relevant single-brand aftermarkets, which caused all their federal and state claims to fall short,” according to court documents.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs clarified that none of them were aware of any of the repair restrictions described in the complaint and added specific allegations regarding price insensitivity, “such that competition in the relevant markets do not affect consumer demand of parts and services,” according to Thompson’s order.

The plaintiffs also clarified and added allegations to their pleading of significant information costs that prevent lifecycle pricing and high switching costs as well as Tesla’s purported anticompetitive conduct in both the EV foremarket and its aftermarkets.

Tesla has until July 15 to respond to the second amended complaint.

Images

Featured image credit: JasonDoiy/iStock