Consumer Protection Action

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Alfred Talyansky

Case No.: 2022AP000788

Officials: Donald, P.J.

Focus: Consumer Protection Action

Talyansky’s family founded Mid City Auto Salvage, the predecessor company to Midwest. Mid City Auto Salvage, operated a salvage yard in the City of Milwaukee. Initially, Mid City obtained its inventory from vehicle auctions. The vehicle parts would then be sold out of the Milwaukee location. In 2006, Mid City was dissolved and Midwest Auto Recycling was created and opened a new physical location in Cudahy, Wisconsin. Due to the internet boom, Midwest Auto Recycling opted to focus on online sales of specific auto parts, including engines, transmissions, axles, transfer cases, and superchargers. To expand the business, Midwest Auto Recycling created various websites and companies—the other listed respondents in this case—to advertise and sell the auto parts to people and businesses throughout the United States. Beginning in 2015, the State received hundreds of complaints regarding Midwest. The complaints ranged from misrepresentations about the mileage of parts to the quality of the parts sold.

This appeal and cross-appeal involve a consumer protection action filed under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, WIS. STAT. § 100.18 (2021-22), against multiple defendants, here the Defendants-

Respondents-Cross-Appellants, who are collectively referred to as “Midwest.”

On appeal, the State contends that the circuit court improperly determined that WIS. STAT. § 100.18(1) does not apply to misrepresentations made by a Wisconsin business to a consumer out-of-state, and that the State needed to establish that someone suffered a pecuniary loss in order to prove a violation of § 100.18(1) and (10r). In its combined response and cross-appeal, Midwest disagrees with the State, and additionally contends that the circuit court erred in failing to award costs to Midwest. The circuit court erred when it prohibited the State from introducing evidence that Midwest made misrepresentations reaching consumers outside Wisconsin. The plain language of WIS. STAT. § 100.18(1) does not require that an advertisement or representation must be made to a Wisconsin resident. The appeals court concludes that the State is entitled to a new trial.

Reversed, Remanded

Decided 07/25/23

Full Text