Photo Enforcement Companies Accuse One Another of Deception

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday decided that photo enforcement vendors American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and Redflex were too much at odds with one another to participate in a court mediation program designed to settle tough cases without going to trial. Each firm has filed suit questioning the integrity and ethics of the other. Redflex refers to “ATS’ pattern and practice of consistent false representations.” ATS, in turn, claims Redflex has been making “false and misleading statements of fact concerning its photographic traffic enforcement products and services.”

ATS fired the first shot in the legal war by suing Redflex in 2009 for importing radar units that were not certified by the Federal Communications Commission in violation of federal law. ATS alleged Redflex could not honestly advertise its services when using an illegal product. A jury threw out the case after deliberating for a few minutes. US District Court Judge Frederick J. Martone described the ATS argument as “extraordinarily weak.” Redflex demanded that ATS pay $3,735,281.52 in attorneys’ fees and court costs, but Martone rejected the request on February 28.

ATS appealed its overall loss in the case to the Ninth Circuit and Redflex appealed the loss of the $3.7 million in fees. Redflex also filed its own false advertising suit against ATS alleging that the Arizona-based company could not claim its speed and red light cameras were “Made in the USA” because they use Nikon cameras from Japan. US District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton last month allowed ATS to file a counterclaim that charged Redflex with lying on its website about which cities are under contract. ATS also took issue with claims by Redflex about being the industry leader.

“Redflex’s statement that Redflex ‘maintained number one position in its industry in revenue generated’ is false and misleading because ATS, not Redflex, occupies the number one position in the industry in revenue generated,” ATS lawyer Erick S. Ottoson wrote in a brief to the court. “ATS, not Redflex, occupies the number one position in the USA in terms of operational photographic traffic enforcement systems.”

Redflex denied these charges on the grounds that the words on the Redflex website were vague and not meant literally. Other statements from the Australian company’s chairman of the board were not advertising, the company argued.

“Many of the statements ATS cites were not made by the plaintiff Redflex and do not appear on its website,” Redflex lawyer Laura H. Kennedy wrote. “They were made by the chairman of Redflex Holdings Limited, Redflex’s parent company, to investors, not potential customers, and appear on that company’s website.”

Both the Ninth Circuit appeal and the trial before Judge Bolton are expected to stretch well into the year.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
 2 comments
  • DC Bruce DC Bruce on Mar 22, 2011

    Well the only good news from this story is that some of these companies' ill-gotten monies (and I consider any monies obtained from red-light cameras and photo radar to be ill-gotten) is being used to support members of my profession. We need the money, guys! ;-) IHMO, the ATS claim against Redflex should never have gone to trial, because it is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to create a private right of action to enforce federal law requirements that any device emitting RF sold in the United States to be FCC certified. Only the feds have the right to enforce that statute. Moreover, in point of fact, assuming the device is correctly designed, FCC approval does not take long to get. An FCC-approved laboratory just has to sign off that the device meets FCC specifications. No more than a temporary impediment to doing business in the US. It would be nice to think that these two blood-suckers would suck themselves into bankruptcy, paying their lawyers. Sadly, as long as they have government "partners" they have a pipeline into the public's wallet, which will keep them going for a while.

  • SexCpotatoes SexCpotatoes on Mar 22, 2011

    Hey, can the citizens get in on this and sue both companies? I think there's plenty of evidence by now of their illegal, dangerous activities.

  • 3-On-The-Tree I’m sure they are good vehicles but you can’t base that on who is buying them. Land Rovers, Bentley’ are bought by Robin Leaches’s “The Rich and Famous” but they have terrible reliability.
  • SCE to AUX The fix sounds like a bandaid. Kia's not going to address the defective shaft assemblies because it's hard and expensive - not cool.
  • Analoggrotto I am sick and tired of every little Hyundai Kia Genesis flaw being blown out of proportion. Why doesn't TTAC talk about the Tundra iForce Max problems, Toyota V35A engine problems or the Lexus 500H Hybrid problems? Here's why: education. Most of America is illiterate, as are the people who bash Hyundai Kia Genesis. Surveys conducted by credible sources have observed a high concentration of Hyundai Kia Genesis models at elite ivy league universities, you know those places where students earn degrees which earn more than $100K per year? Get with the program TTAC.
  • Analoggrotto NoooooooO!
  • Ted “the model is going to be almost 4 inches longer and 2 inches wider than its predecessor”Size matters. In this case there is 6” too much.
Next