{"id":3096,"date":"2026-07-13T09:02:19","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T13:02:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3096"},"modified":"2026-07-13T10:36:53","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T14:36:53","slug":"ninth-circuit-revives-dishwasher-warranty-class-action-against-whirlpool-reversing-dismissal-of-washington-consumer-protection-act-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/07\/13\/ninth-circuit-revives-dishwasher-warranty-class-action-against-whirlpool-reversing-dismissal-of-washington-consumer-protection-act-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Revives Dishwasher Warranty Class Action Against Whirlpool, Reversing Dismissal Of Washington Consumer Protection Act Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Elizabeth G. Underwood<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> On July 6, 2026, in Shellenberger v. AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc., et al., No. 25-1448 (9th Cir. July 6, 2026), Judges Christen, Hurwitz, and Bade of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed <\/a>a district court\u2019s dismissal of a putative class action alleging that AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (\u201cCPA\u201d) in connection with a KitchenAid service plan.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit held that the named Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Defendants\u2019 offer letter and service contract, taken together, had the capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer, and that the district court erred in resolving that fact-intensive question at the motion to dismiss stage.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for companies that market service plans, particularly where buyout provisions or qualifiers in the fine print may be read as cutting against the offerings set out in consumer offer letters.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff Hadassah Shellenberger (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) filed a putative class action against AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), asserting a claim under the CPA, Wash. Rev. Code \u00a7\u00a7 19.86.020, 19.86.093.  Id.<\/em> at 1.  Plaintiff alleged that Defendants\u2019 offer letter created the impression \u201cthat the KitchenAid Service Plan would provide repairs or replacements for covered malfunctions, with repairs performed by KitchenAid-certified technicians, at no out-of-pocket expense to her.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 3.  Plaintiff further alleged that this impression was inconsistent with the terms of the service contract, which included a buyout option, exercisable at Defendants\u2019 sole discretion, allowing Defendants to technically satisfy all obligations under the contract without ever providing a repair or replacement.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court dismissed Plaintiff\u2019s CPA claim, finding that she had failed to plausibly allege the first element of a CPA claim, namely, \u201cwhether the defendant has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 2.  Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.  Id.<\/em> at 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff\u2019s CPA claim.  Id.<\/em> at 7.  The Ninth Circuit determined that Plaintiff\u2019s interpretation of the offer letter was \u201cfacially plausible\u201d because the offer letter mentioned only repairs and replacements as modes of performance, while the buyout option in the service contract provided an alternative manner of performance that was \u201cinconsistent with the advertised benefits.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants\u2019 arguments that caveats in the offer letter and a fine-print disclaimer made Plaintiff\u2019s interpretation implausible, finding the disclaimer language \u201cinsufficiently clear to change the apparent meaning of the offer letter\u2019s representations.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 4 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In addition, the Ninth Circuit similarly rejected the argument that qualifiers, such as \u201ccovered\u201d and \u201cwhere applicable\u201d, defeated Plaintiff\u2019s reading, concluding that those terms plausibly limited only the specific representations immediately next to them.  Id.<\/em> at 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Ninth Circuit highlighted that whether a representation is misleading to a reasonable consumer is \u201ca fact-intensive question not typically susceptible to resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision underscores that companies cannot avoid liability at the motion to dismiss stage under the CPA and other similar consumer protection statutes by simply pointing to fine-print disclaimers or qualifying words like \u201ccovered\u201d or \u201cwhere applicable.\u201d  Instead, courts will look to whether that fine print is clear enough to actually change the overall impression created by a company\u2019s offer letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, companies should audit consumer-facing offer letters and relevant marketing materials against discretionary provisions in service contracts to ensure consistency and compliance, especially where materials promise specific modes of performance, such as repair or replacement by certified technicians as seen in this case, that could be undercut by a seller\u2019s discretion to satisfy its obligations through a different mechanism.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Elizabeth G. Underwood Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 6, 2026, in Shellenberger v. AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc., et al., No. 25-1448 (9th Cir. July 6, 2026), Judges Christen, Hurwitz, and Bade of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court\u2019s dismissal of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Revives Dishwasher Warranty Class Action Against Whirlpool, Reversing Dismissal Of Washington Consumer Protection Act Claim”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,149],"class_list":["post-3096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consumer-fraud-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":149,"user_id":744,"is_guest":0,"slug":"eunderwood","display_name":"Elizabeth Underwood","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/10\/underwoodelizabeth-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Underwood","first_name":"Elizabeth","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/elizabethunderwood.html","description":"Read Elizabeth's bio."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3099,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3096\/revisions\/3099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3096"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}