Once again, I am disappointed that a journalist covering a legal filing -- and even quoting from the complaint itself -- has not included a copy of that complaint with their reporting. Or even so much as the case name or filing number at Marin Superior Court. But I'm even further disappointed by the Superior Court website, which allows the public to look up cases but not view documents. Even though one can view the same document in-person at the courthouse. Ugh.
In any case, the case number is CV0004757 and the case status is viewable at this link, after creating a mandatory free login. As it happens, the law firm that prepared that filing also posted the case number in a blog post, but again without the complaint PDF itself. As for the press release seeking additional plaintiffs to join the class action lawsuit, there's still no PDF link although it does have a few clues as to what's in the lawsuit itself. Just more disappointment.
From what I can gather, the lawsuit seems to be:
- Seeking class action status
- Has a cause of action under California's false advertising laws (which one? idk) premised on Super73 ebikes not being lawful ebikes
- Has another cause of action seeking product refunds, presumably under a consumer protection law (which one? idk)
- Asks for a declaration that Super73 ebikes are not ebikes under California law
This is, IMO, IANAL, wholly insufficient to even assess the merits of the complaint. The article has a few parts of background info, like how the plaintiff bought an ebike for her son. But that's not relevant to the central question: does Super73 produce and advertise unlawful ebikes? It also doesn't even answer the side question of: did she attempt to obtain a refund from Super73 and was declined? From this article, we don't know, and only the legal complaint has any hope of furthering this analysis.
There's also the question of which ebike she purchased, since it's unclear if this lawsuit is about one particular model, or every model that Super73 sells. As of this writing, the Super73 website lists sixteen variants for sale, many of which seem to wear multiple designations: "classes 1/2/3/off-road". This comports with a PDF on their website describing each model's behavior under different settings, and with or without throttle assist.
From that PDF, and the images on their website, I can only see one viable direction for this lawsuit, pertaining to the "off-road mode". That is to say, the documented behavior in classes 1, 2 (the default), and 3 all seem to comport with the California ebike class system, with classes 1/2 restricted to 20 MPH (32 kph) with/without throttle, and class 3 restricted to 28 MPH (45 kph) with pedal-assist only. The models themselves include ostensible pedals and chains, so it meets that part of the law as well.
Carefully taking everything at face value, I don't see how the plaintiff can argue that what they bought -- a class 2 ebike with the ability to switch to off-road mode -- is an illegal ebike, as of 2024. The legal situation will change on 1 January 2025, since SB 1271 and AB 1774 go into effect. SB 1271 adds a rule against advertising/selling ebikes that are intentionally modifiable beyond the class system, and AB 1774 prohibits an individual from modifying an existing, lawful ebike beyond the class system.
Since this lawsuit was initially filed on 10 December 2024, the plaintiff cannot rely on those laws which have not become active yet, for an ebike purchase that occurred before 2025. As of this moment in December 2024, no law specifically prohibits an ebike which can change its abilities beyond the class system, provided that such an ebike is not used on public roads. Super73 appears to have made ebikes which complied with the law up to this point. If a user selects the off-road mode but rides on the street, they alone would suffer the legal consequences, since Super73 appears to have labeled and set their bikes to default to Class 2, with all attendant restrictions required.
I can't even begin to imagine what the purpose of this lawsuit is. Is it a plaintiff who found out after the 30-day return period that her son's school bans specific ebikes by name? That's hardly Super73's fault. Or it it a law firm trying to make noise about ebikes in MTB-enthusiastic Marin County, which will soon allow municipalities to ban under-16s from using Class 2 ebikes?