USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lohr Beck and Kasey Clark, King & Spalding LLP
Melton’s case, testimony established that the pre-dis - tribution exchange of price-increase letters was part of an agreement with the express purpose of raising prices. As a result of the court’s ruling, David Melton’s 26-month prison sentence was upheld. A New “Right to Repair” Class Action in the Northern District of Georgia The “right to repair” debate has sparked litigation in Georgia, with a class action complaint recently filed against Atlanta-based Porsche Cars North America, Inc. in the Northern District of Georgia. The case, Fleet Salvage Systems , Inc . v Porsche Cars North America , Inc ., No. 1:26-cv-02553-ELR (N.D. Ga. filed May 6, 2026), is likely to test novel applications of both feder - al antitrust law and Georgia consumer protection law. The plaintiff, a Florida corporation that purchased a 2024 model year Porsche in December 2024, has sued on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a Florida subclass consisting of all persons “who paid a Porsche-authorized dealer to perform repairs or main - tenance services on Affected Vehicles.” Am. Class Action Compl. ¶¶ 17–18, 42–43, Fleet Salvage Sys ., Inc . v Porsche Cars N . Am ., Inc ., No. 1:26-cv-02553- ELR, ECF No. 17 (N.D. Ga. July 20, 2026). Plaintiff’s theory is single-brand aftermarket monopolisation: Porsche is alleged to have designed the electronic architecture of its 2024 model year and later vehicles so that only authorised dealers can access the diag - nostic, calibration, coding, and software tools required to complete any servicing or repair. Id. ¶¶ 3–9. Inde - pendent repair providers (IRPs), the complaint alleg - es, can perform such work only if they purchase the Porsche Integrated Workshop Information System IV (PIWIS) diagnostic software, as well as the attendant Porsche Tester hardware and authenticated server access, which are sold at what the plaintiff character - ises as a “prohibitive cost.” Id. ¶ 4. The plaintiff alleges that Porsche and its dealers hold a 100% share of the market for fully functional repair and maintenance of the affected vehicles, that own - ers are “locked in” by high switching costs after pur - chase, and that putative class members have paid supracompetitive prices for repairs, maintenance, and parts. Id. ¶¶ 27–30, 37, 74. The amended complaint asserts four counts:
• monopolisation and attempted monopolisation of the repair and servicing market under Section 2 of the Sherman Act; • conspiracy to monopolise under Section 2, prem - ised on an alleged agreement with independently owned Porsche dealerships; • violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act on behalf of the Florida subclass; and • violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. Sections 10-1- 370 et seq., on behalf of the nationwide class. Id. ¶¶ 70–109. Because the UDTPA affords injunctive relief to persons likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice without proof of competition between the parties or actual confusion, the count is framed around ongoing and future harm and seeks an injunction requiring Por - sche to make fully functional service capability avail - able to IRPs on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Id. ¶¶ 106–108. Porsche filed a motion to dismiss on August 17, 2026, raising two key issues. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Fleet Salvage Sys ., Inc . v Porsche Cars N . Am ., Inc ., No. 1:26-cv-02553-ELR, ECF No. 20-1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2026). The first is whether the plaintiff can plead a single-brand after - market which, Porsche argues, under Eastman Kodak Co . v Image Technical Services , Inc ., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), requires consumers to demonstrate that they were “locked in” to the product they purchased (eg, through high switching costs) before the manufacturer subsequently changed its repair or replacement parts policy to make it more difficult to receive repair or maintenance services from an independent provider. Porsche argues that, in its case, the requirement for independent providers to purchase subscriptions to perform repairs was in effect before the plaintiff pur - chased its 2024 model year vehicle. Id. at 11–14. The second issue is whether charging independent shops a high price for proprietary diagnostic tools can be exclusionary conduct at all, given the general rule that firms are free to choose their counterparties and the terms of their contracts. Id. at 17–19 (citing Pac . Bell Tel . Co . v linkLine Commc ’ ns , Inc ., 555 U.S. 438, 448 (2009)). Briefing is ongoing.
268 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook