Plaintiff Doesn't State a Claim in Wash. Consumer Protection Act Complaint: Amazon

Tonny Storey doesn’t state a claim for breach of contract, breach of contract of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act or unjust enrichment, said Amazon’s reply (docket 2:23-cv-01529) Monday in support of its motion to dismiss his first amended complaint (FAC) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Storey alleges Amazon didn’t deliver on its promise of guaranteed delivery by 11 a.m. when his order, for which he paid an extra $2.99 delivery fee, arrived at 12:57 p.m. instead. “Nothing in the contract’s language offered that promise,” said Amazon’s reply. Storey concedes that the contract refers only to a “date” for a delivery “guarantee” and that Amazon delivered Storey’s order of a $19.99 Stash Tea sampler on the promised date, said the reply. The “concessions are all that is needed” to grant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, it said. No law supports Storey's allegation that the company breached its promise in its terms and conditions to issue a refund when the guaranteed delivery wasn’t provided, the reply said. Amazon argued that it was Storey’s “reasonable expectation” that it would do something different from what the contract provides, and “no law supports this “expectations” argument, it said. “Settled principles of contract law that unequivocally hold that what matters for a breach of contract claim is the language of the contract itself,” said the reply. Amazon also called Storey’s use of “reasonableness” “ironic” because it simultaneously argues the plaintiff “is permitted to do nothing to obtain a refund from Amazon if he believes he was entitled to one,” it said. That position, too, is “contradicted by the contract itself,” which tells customers to contact customer service if they believe they’re owed a refund, it said. Storey claims the process for contacting Amazon is “too onerous,” but “this is just argument of counsel” that’s not pled in the FAC, “and that is otherwise contradicted by the admission that Storey never even attempted to contact Amazon,” it said. Storey’s good faith and fair dealing claim “is extinguished by Amazon’s performance of its obligations under the parties’ contract,” said the reply, and his CPA claim fails because “he can point to no actionable misrepresentation, omission, or unfair practice by Amazon.” The plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim fails as well because there’s a valid contract between the parties; his differing interpretation of that contract “provides no basis for concluding that there is no contract at issue,” Amazon said.