Consumer fraud class-action

It’s not easy for the police to enforce the law against e-motos by stopping individual riders and issuing citations one-by-one.  For that reason, as one police chief observed in 2024, a more effective route would be to attack the source of the problem — the manufacturers and retailers — by means of a consumer class action for fraud.

In late 2024, one parent in Fairfax, California did just that.  Hillary Whitman had purchased a Super73 for her 12 year old son, based on the representation that it was a Class 2 e-bike legal for her son to ride.  Only later did she learned from the police that it was not a legal e-bike because its motor was capable of propelling the vehicle faster than 20 mph by simple use of the app provided by Super73.  Joined by another Fairfax parent with a similar experience, they are seeking refunds from Super73 on behalf of all similarly situated persons.

Super73 responded by stonewalling and refusing to produce any documents or provide any other information.  It moved to dismiss the case on various legal grounds — all of which the Marin County Superior Court rejected.  The Court ruled that the complaint stated valid claims, and denied Super73’s motion in its entirety.  The Court also rejected Super73’s argument that the case was not a proper class action on behalf of all similarly situated purchasers of misrepresented Super73 vehicles.  And the Court denied Super73’s motion to transfer the case to a different county.

It will be up to the court to decide the merits of this case based on the evidence and the law.  In the meantime, we urge parents not to buy or allow their children to ride any throttle device.  Children should be encouraged to ride regular bicycles or, if needed, a pedal-assist e-bike, not a throttle e-bike and certainly not a throttle e-moto even if it has a Class 2 e-bike label.