Whether plaintiffs’ state-law claims alleging violation of state consumer protection, fraud, & deceptive trade practices laws were preempted by the Clean Air Act; Whether the state claims were “obstacle preempted”; In re Ford Motor Co F-150 & Ranger Truck Fuel Econ Mktg & Sales Practices Litig; Buckman Co v Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm; Wyeth v Levine; Whether the claims impermissibly challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or undermined its policy considerations; Whether plaintiffs (as “indirect purchasers”) had standing to sue under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act; The indirect-purchaser rule; Illinois Brick Co v Illinois

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court reversed the district court’s ruling that plaintiff-purchasers’ state-law claims were impliedly preempted by the Clean Air Act. But if affirmed its ruling that because they were “indirect purchasers,” they did not have standing to sue under RICO. They purchased or leased a model year 2011–2016 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD or 3500HD, or a GMC Sierra 2500HD or 3500HD (collectively Duramax Trucks), which are powered by a diesel Duramax engine. They sued defendants for allegedly falsely representing fuel and environmental information about the trucks. Plaintiffs brought claims for violations of state consumer protection, fraud, breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, and deceptive trade practices laws. They also alleged a RICO violation. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on all claims, ruling that the Clean Air Act preempted the state claims, and that plaintiffs, as “indirect purchasers,” lacked standing to bring a RICO claim. On appeal, the court first considered the preemption issue and held that the district court erred by ruling that preemption applied. Defendants argued that the state-law claims were “obstacle preempted. i.e., they are an obstacle to achieving Congress’s full purposes and objectives.” Applying a presumption against preemption, the court reviewed the case on which the defendants primarily relied, Ford, in which it ruled that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act “impliedly preempted” claims of fraud-on-the-agency. The court held that Ford did not apply to this case. Rather, Buckman controlled and under that decision, plaintiffs’ state-law claims were not preempted. “Unlike the claims in Ford, these state-law claims exist independently of federal law and any EPA findings, and do not depend on proving fraud on the EPA or a violation of federal law.” However, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling on the RICO claim, holding that the “bright-line” indirect-purchaser rule applied and thus, plaintiffs lacked standing as to the RICO claim. Under the rule, “‘consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain’ do not have standing under RICO ‘to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain.’” Reversed in part, affirmed in part.