A federal judge in California has dismissed Ford’s lawsuit accusing several law firms of systematically overbilling the automaker under the state’s Lemon Law, finding the claims insufficient to proceed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The case, filed in May, alleged widespread fraudulent billing practices designed to exploit a system intended to protect consumers.
The Core Allegations
Ford claimed that roughly half of the legal fee submissions it received from firms handling Lemon Law disputes were fabricated or grossly inflated. The automaker argued these firms abused a requirement for manufacturers to cover attorney costs, turning consumer protection into a profit-driven scheme.
Key evidence cited by Ford included extreme billing records, such as Amy Morse, a partner at Knight Law Group, allegedly billing more than 20 hours per day on 66 separate occasions. One particularly striking instance showed Morse billing 57.5 hours in a single day, figures Ford presented as proof of deliberate deception. The company accused the firms — including Knight Law Group, The Altman Law Group, and Wirtz Law — of defrauding multiple automakers through similar schemes.
Noerr-Pennington Immunity Prevails
Despite Ford’s aggressive claims, U.S. District Judge Michelle Williams Court ruled that the law firms were protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, a legal doctrine that prevents antitrust claims against parties petitioning the government. This immunity effectively shields the firms from liability, as their actions were considered legitimate lobbying of regulatory bodies rather than illegal racketeering.
The judge also found that Ford’s RICO allegations lacked sufficient evidence, further weakening the automaker’s case. The decision leaves Ford with no immediate legal recourse, though the company has until December 22 to amend and refile the lawsuit if it chooses to pursue the matter further.
Implications and What Comes Next
This ruling raises questions about the extent to which automakers can challenge legal fees in Lemon Law cases. While Ford alleges systematic fraud, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine prioritizes the right to petition the government, even if those petitions involve aggressive billing practices.
The dismissal underscores the challenges automakers face in combating perceived abuse of consumer protection laws. The case highlights the tension between consumer advocacy and the potential for legal exploitation.
Ford’s accusations that some firms later retracted fraudulent payment requests to “cover their tracks” suggest a pattern of intentional misconduct, but proving RICO violations requires a higher evidentiary threshold. The outcome suggests that future litigation will need stronger evidence to overcome the legal protections afforded to firms engaged in lobbying or regulatory disputes.
