Class Action Says SkyFine’s Ignition Interlock Lease Agreements Are Unlawfully Confusing

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims SkyFine USA, a manufacturer of breath alcohol testing products, has violated federal law in that its ignition interlock device (IID) lease agreements fail to clearly provide consumers with certain disclosures.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

In particular, the 23-page lawsuit says that the company, which leases ignition interlock devices to drivers nationwide, has run afoul of the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), an amendment to the federal Truth In Lending Act, by disclosing payment details in consumers’ lease agreements in an unlawfully confusing and unclear manner.

“Had Plaintiff understood the true financial responsibilities of Defendant’s lease agreement, he would not have signed it,” the complaint emphasizes.

The CLA is designed to protect consumers from “obfuscation or misinformation” in lease transactions that are “ripe for misunderstandings,” the case shares. Further, the suit explains that the CLA requires consumer leases to outline certain disclosures in a “clear and conspicuous” way, set apart from the other terms of the agreement and stated in a similar manner to the model form provided to lessors.

Per the case, these crucial “segregated” disclosures include the amount due at lease signing, details about periodic payments, the total amount of other charges not included in periodic payments and the total of all payments due under the lease.

“In short, the CLA … require[s] that a lessor like [SkyFine] make explicitly clear to a lessee … precisely what he must pay under the proposed lease, when he must pay it, and under what circumstances he must make such payments,” the complaint summarizes.

The filing argues, however, that SkyFine USA’s lease agreements fail to make many of the necessary disclosures in the clear and conspicuous manner required by the CLA and instead cause confusion to a degree that is “tantamount to deception.”

The plaintiff, a California resident, leased an IID from SkyFine USA in November 2021 for 12 months, the lawsuit relays. Contrary to the CLA’s requirements, the man’s lease agreement was, according to the suit, a 10-page “onslaught” of confusing terms and fees that made it unclear what he owed and when.

According to the case, the plaintiff’s lease failed to singularly state the total amount he must pay upon signing, details about periodic payments, and the inclusive total of all payments due under the agreement, in violation of the CLA.

In addition, “buried in the fine print of the agreement and entirely separated from the earlier listings of fees and charges” was an additional $7.99 monthly fee for the use of SkyFine USA’s service app, the complaint says. As the filing tells it, the plaintiff was unaware of the requirement to use this app and its added monthly fee when he signed the lease agreement.

“The Lease presented to [the plaintiff] is precisely what the CLA … [was] enacted to avoid—a confusing onslaught of lease terms failing completely to ‘focus[] the consumer’s attention on key information,’” the suit contends.

The lawsuit looks to represent:

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.