Safelite Responds to Campfield’s Complaint

Safelite Group, Safelite Solutions and Safelite Fulfillment LLC have responded to complaints made by Rich Campfield, founder of Ultra Bond, in his 2015 lawsuit against the company alleging it utilizes misleading advertising, damaging his business and depriving consumers of the choice to repair long cracks on their windshields. 

The original suit claims that Safelite uses misleading advertising that favors windshield replacements rather than repairs of long cracks, which have “wiped out a large portion (if not most) of the market for Ultra Bond’s products and services.” Ultra Bond has offered long-crack repair products and services since 1989.

According to court documents, “The heart of this case is Safelite’s long-running and egregiously misleading advertising and promotional scheme in which it falsely tells consumers that cracks longer than six inches cannot be repaired.

“Instead, Safelite falsely tells consumers that their windshield must be replaced when a crack is longer than six inches,” the court document reads. “This misstatement misleads consumers to replace their damaged windshield which costs many times more than a repair, in addition to the fact that replacement is also demonstrably less structurally safe than repairing a factory installed windshield.”

Campfield’s attorneys site the Lanham Act, which prohibits any “false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact which . . . in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature characteristics, [or] qualities . . . of . . . goods, services, or commercial activities.”

After numerous extensions to respond and a motion to dismiss, Safelite responded to Campfield and Ultra Bond Inc.’s (collectively called “plaintiffs”) accusations, denying all allegations.

The defendants’ affirmative defenses state:

  • “Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the absence of any harm or damages incurred by Plaintiffs.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the applicable statute of limitations and/or doctrine of laches.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, based on a lack of standing.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages.
  • Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, are speculative and thus unavailable as a matter of law.
  • Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused by factors other than Safelite’s alleged actions.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs’ own conduct and/or Plaintiffs’ own failure to act in good faith.
  • Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs’ unclean hands.”

The defendants also demanded a trial by jury.

To read Safelite’s response, click here.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Headlines, glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *