Standing; Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient “injury in fact” to support Article III standing; Speerly v General Motors, LLC; Whether plaintiffs’ state common-law fraud claim was properly dismissed; Whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s “heightened pleading requirement” for a fraud claim’s “knowledge” element will be applied to a product-defect claim; Whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged defendant knew of the defect through consumer reporting agencies; 15 USC § 2055a(c)(1); 16 CFR § 1102.20; Whether defendant had a “duty to disclose”; M&D, Inc v WB McConkey (MI App); Chapman v General Motors LLC, (ED MI); State “consumer protection” claims; Michigan Consumer Protection Act

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] In this putative class action, the court held that the district court erred by finding plaintiffs-purchasers failed to plausibly allege that defendant-Whirlpool had knowledge of the alleged product defect through consumer complaints about the defect. It also held that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement will not be applied to a product-defect claim. Plaintiffs sued Whirlpool under various federal and state theories, alleging certain models of its single-device gas ovens with stovetop burners and front-mounted control knobs “acuate unintentionally,” resulting in a dangerous condition, and that Whirlpool did not notify the purchasers as soon as it became aware of the defect. Whirlpool argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that their claims lacked merit. The district court ruled that they alleged a sufficient injury to support standing but dismissed all their claims for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court first held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the product had “inherent safety risks.” It declined to apply Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements to a product defect claim, holding that plaintiffs must allege that Whirlpool “plausibly knew” of the defect. Here, they alleged that consumer reporting agencies sent notices of the defect “directly to Whirlpool consistent with their reporting obligations.” To determine whether Whirlpool had a duty to disclose the defect, the court had to consider the laws in each of the five states represented by the plaintiffs. Under Michigan law, if a manufacturer has superior knowledge of a defect, it has a duty to disclose. Only Illinois law has no such duty. Considering plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims, the court held that they pled a plausible claim under Michigan’s consumer protection law, as well as that of the rest of the states. The court then reinstated plaintiffs’ common law fraud and consumer protection claims, aside from the Illinois common law fraud claim. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.