In In BCR Carpentry LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 24-3202 (3d Cir. October 3, 2025), the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action challenging “destination charges” disclosed on vehicle window stickers. The plaintiffs alleged that FCA US LLC (FCA) violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and committed common-law unjust enrichment and money had and received by embedding profit within the “destination charge” disclosed pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 (AIDA).
Writing for the Court, Judge Matey concluded that, as a matter of New Jersey law, the inclusion of profit within a “destination charge” is not, by itself, an actionable affirmative misrepresentation or unconscionable practice under the NJCFA, and that any omissions-based theory fails absent a duty to disclose — particularly where, as there, the manufacturer’s charge is a pass-through to the dealer and there is no direct relationship with the consumer. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and money had and received claims.
Judge Krause dissented, emphasizing New Jersey’s “capacity to mislead” standard for affirmative acts under the NJCFA and arguing that the complaint plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers understand “destination charge” to reflect costs rather than profit.
The majority framed the operative standard by stating that the misrepresentation must be “so misleading as to a fact material to the consumer’s decision that the consumer is effectively deprived of the ability to make an intelligent decision.” Against that yardstick, the opinion holds that the mere use of “destination charge” is not misleading. The key move is the Court’s premise that “no reasonable consumer would be surprised to learn that a ‘charge’ includes profit.” The plaintiffs’ reliance on public statements suggesting destination charges reflect only cost failed because the complaint did not identify any FCA statement explicitly asserting that profit was excluded.