By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) – Ford Motor Co on Friday defeated an appeal by consumers who said the automaker cheated on fuel economy tests for its F-150 and Ranger trucks, allowing it to inflate mileage estimates on window stickers.
In a 3-0 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said federal law gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to estimate vehicle fuel economy, preempting the plaintiffs’ state law-based claims.
Ford’s F-series has been the best-selling American truck for 46 straight years.
The proposed class action covered 2018-2020 model year F-150s, and 2019-2020 model year Rangers.
Ford was accused of misleading the EPA by intentionally miscalculating factors used in certification testing.
The plaintiffs said this led the EPA to overestimate fuel economy by as much as 15%, inducing them to overpay for their trucks and resulting in extra fuel costs.
Circuit Judge Richard Griffin, however, said federal law provided standards for the EPA’s estimates, and the estimates did not need to be strictly accurate. He also said the EPA had “significant authority” to investigate and deter fraud.
“State-law tort claims, like plaintiffs’, would skew this balance and permit juries to take the EPA’s place in determining whether fuel economy estimates are reasonable,” Griffin wrote.
Friday’s decision upheld a February 2022 ruling by Chief Judge Sean Cox in federal court in Detroit.
“This is a horrible result for consumers,” Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email. “This is dead against Supreme Court precedent that gives states the right to regulate deceptive conduct.”
Ford said in a statement it was pleased the court concluded that consumers can rely on the EPA’s testing process and data.
In February 2021, the Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker said the U.S. Department of Justice had closed a criminal probe into its fuel economy and emissions certification process without taking action.
The case is In re: Ford Motor Co F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1245.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
