Whether federal law preempted plaintiffs’ state-law claims; The Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or the agency); The Energy Policy & Conservation Act (EPCA); The Supremacy Clause (US Const art VI, cl 2); “Implied preemption”

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiffs’ fraud-on-the-agency claims against defendant-Ford regarding allegedly fraudulent fuel economy reporting were impliedly preempted because they conflicted with the EPCA and its regulatory scheme, which specifically control fuel economy testing. Ford conducted such testing on the F-150 and Ranger trucks, and provided the figures to the EPA, which published the estimates. Several Ford employees questioned the test results, and Ford announced it would investigate. Federal agencies, including the EPA, tested the vehicles, and “independent car reviewers performed ‘real-world mileage’ tests and determined that the actual performance of the Ranger and other vehicles was ‘nowhere close’ to the EPA estimates.” Plaintiffs’ testing led them to conclude that Ford had “fraudulently reduced the road-load resistance level used in the dynamometer testing[,]” which resulted in inaccurate mpg results. They filed several putative class actions. They were then directed to file a consolidated complaint, which included claims for contract breach, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment under the laws of all the states. Ford argued federal law preempted their state-law claims, and that the EPA had primary jurisdiction over the case. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The court agreed that implied preemption called for dismissal. It noted that while no other circuit has addressed implied preemption under these specific circumstances, “a host of caselaw exists addressing similar fraud-on-the-agency claims in the context of implied preemption.” The court noted the EPA has been given the means to investigate and respond to any potential fraud in the reporting requirements, and has “significant discretion” throughout the procedures, as illustrated by the fact it “does not require the figures to be strictly accurate; rather, they must be reasonably related to the testing performed and the EPA’s expected fuel economy ratings.” The court found that juries could not be left to “second guess” or “rebalance” the agency’s objectives, and state-law tort claims would skew the disclosures that manufacturers are required to make to the agency. Further, “plaintiffs’ claims could not exist apart from federal law. . . . [C]rucially, the regulatory scheme governing fuel economy standards requires the EPA to approve those figures and publish them as its own. While Ford must provide the requisite testing data to the EPA, it is the EPA’s responsibility to determine whether that data is ‘reasonable’; after doing so, the EPA adopts those figures.” Any fraud Ford committed on consumers was merely “a byproduct of alleged fraud committed on the EPA.”