The attorneys for Richard Campfield, founder of Ultra Bond in Grand Junction, Colo., urged an Ohio judge not to dismiss his amended complaint against Safelite, according to a recently filed court document. Campfield is suing the company for allegedly utilizing misleading advertising and damaging his business.
In the plaintiff’s appeal, Campfield’s attorneys argue that the discovery phase revealed the scope of Safelite’s marketing campaign, claiming it is centered on the misrepresentation that cracks longer than six inches cannot be repaired. Campfield’s attorneys also contend that the information is “strategically and widely deployed across multiple media platforms to purposefully influence the relevant purchasing public to buy more costly windshield replacements.”
Safelite motioned to dismiss the amended complaint based on failure to make a claim, with defense attorneys stating that it’s company policy to abide by the dollar-bill rule. The court previously stated that Safelite’s use of the dollar-bill rule does not violate the Lanham Act.
“The dollar bill rule is a true statement of Safelite policy, as Safelite neither recommends nor performs repairs of cracks over six inches, known as ‘long cracks,’” the motion reads. “Plaintiffs, by contrast, offer products to repair long cracks. Unsurprisingly, they dislike the dollar bill rule. But they have not convinced the nation’s insurance companies, auto glass shops, or end consumers to embrace their products. So they have repeatedly turned to the courts to manipulate the market in their favor.”
In response, Campfield claims Safelite national repair development manager David Erwin, alongside Paul Syfko, an executive of Belron-owned Glass Medic, were members of the Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standard (ROLAGS) Standards Development Committee and voted to approve the 14-inch repair standard in 2007. ROLAGS is a voluntary standard that addresses the proper repair of windshields.
Campfield requested oral arguments after “complex issues” were raised in Safelite’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint; Safelite did not object to the request. However, the company claims argument is not necessary to dismiss the case since the court previously granted in part Safelite’s motion to dismiss.
