Consumer protection – Choice of law

Listen to this article

Where a proposed class action has been brought alleging that the defendant bus company unlawfully subjects customers to the payment of junk fees, a G.L.c. 93A count should be dismissed because it is clear from the face of the complaint that New York law is applicable.

“This is a proposed class action alleging Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. (‘Defendant’) unlawfully subjects customers to the payment of junk fees. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, a proposed national class of all others similarly situated, and a proposed subclass of similarly situated New York residents, initiated this action, alleging Defendant’s conduct constitutes unjust enrichment (Count I), is in breach of a contract (Count II), breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), violates Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93A (Count IV), and violates New York Gen. Bus. Law §§349 and 350 (Counts V & VI). …

“Here, Defendant is headquartered in Massachusetts. Defendant also arguably made the alleged misrepresentations in Massachusetts, although the court accords this factor relatively little weight in the context of internet advertising. The remaining factors, moreover, counsel against applying Massachusetts law, as Plaintiff acted in reliance upon Defendant’s alleged representation in New York; Plaintiff received the representation in New York; the bus ride was to leave from New York; and Plaintiff was presumably paying Defendant in New York. …

“… Choice of law analysis is concerned with whether this Plaintiff may rely on Chapter 93A in the circumstances of this case, not whether a hypothetical plaintiff may ever do so. Depending on the balancing of the Restatement 148(2) factors, it is certainly possible Massachusetts law could have a more substantial connection to the claim of an out of state plaintiff in the right case. In this case, however, it is clear from the face of the complaint that New York law is applicable.

“Accordingly, Count IV is dismissed on choice of law grounds.”

Other counts

“Here, even drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiff, this complaint is insufficient to plead a breach of contract claim. …

“There is no plausible allegation Plaintiff failed to get what he bargained for — a bus trip to Philadelphia for the price he paid — meaning the complaint fails to allege either breach or damages. …

“Similarly, Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the complaint does not identify any conduct violating the spirit of the parties’ agreement. …

“Finally, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is foreclosed because, ‘[a] party with an adequate remedy at law cannot claim unjust enrichment.’ …”

Mulani, et al. v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-520-25) (16 pages) (Mastroianni, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-12277-MGM) (Sept. 23, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.