Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Plaintiffs pursue certification for class action against Dollar General over allegedly obsolete motor oil

Lawsuits
Pexels photo 220989

Pexels

KANSAS CITY. Mo. (Legal Newsline) – A group of consumers is seeking certification for a class action lawsuit against retailer Dollar General over allegations it sold obsolete motor oil that is not suitable for modern automobiles.

A total of 20 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Aug. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The customers alleged in their legal actions that Dollar General sold motor oil at its stores that does not have the same quality as their counterparts from name brands, and that the same products were not suitable for most cars on the road.

"Using deceptive, unfair and unlawful marketing and sales practices, between late 2010 and early 2017, Dollar General sold millions of bottles of its DG Auto motor oil to plaintiffs and class members, who were not aware that the DG Auto motor oil was unsuitable for nearly every automobile on the road," the motion states.

Another claim on the suits is that Dollar General re-branded the motor oil from a Unilab label to DG Auto.

"Dollar General began selling the re-branded, still obsolete, DG Auto motor oil in September 2010, offering the same two grades previously offered under the Unilab label—SAE 10W-40, not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built after 1988, and SAE 30, not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built after 1930."

In 2015, the motion states Dollar General expanded its DG Auto oil line, but still with an obsolete oil type, 10W-30 (SF), which is not suitable for most gasoline-powered engines built after 1988.

The group claims that certifying for class action "will materially advance the disposition of this litigation," as "the certified issues for this group of property damage claimants will be identical," the motion said.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number 4:17-cv-00832-GAF

More News