Marlowe v. My Pillow, Inc.
1:17-cv-00463
N.D. OhioSep 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tim Marlowe purchased two King-size MyPillow pillows under a "buy one, get one" (BOGO) promotion for $119.96 on December 11, 2015.
- Plaintiff alleges the BOGO offer inflated the price of the first pillow so the second was not truly free (single pillow price allegedly $54.95 on Amazon).
- Marlowe brought class and individual claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), and claims for unjust enrichment and fraud.
- Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court evaluated whether plaintiff sufficiently pleaded actual damages and other required elements for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCSPA — Class claim: actual damages for class | BOGO misled buyers; class members paid for a pillow they did not receive (the "free" pillow) | No factual showing that purchasers did not receive what they paid for or that goods were worth less than paid | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead actual damages for class relief |
| OCSPA — Individual claim | Same deceptive-practice allegations support individual relief | Class defect bars all OCSPA claims | Not dismissed — individual OCSPA claim survives at pleading stage |
| Unjust enrichment | MyPillow was unjustly enriched by retaining payment for a non-free pillow | Plaintiffs received two pillows and conferred the benefit; no unjust retention | Dismissed — plaintiff received the bargained-for benefit; no unjust retention |
| Fraud | BOGO representation was false and induced reliance causing injury | No allegation of damages beyond reliance; no proximate injury alleged | Dismissed — failed to allege the required injury element of fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Gerboc v. ContextLogic, Inc., 867 F.3d 675 (6th Cir.) (OCSPA damages and unjust-enrichment analysis)
- Wuliger v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 567 F.3d 787 (6th Cir.) (unjust enrichment compensates benefit conferred, not losses)
- Martin v. Lamrite West, Inc., 41 N.E.3d 850 (Ohio Ct. App.) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 899 F.2d 485 (6th Cir.) (dismissal where complaint lacks necessary element)