Examples of False and Potentially False Advertising

in the AGRR Industry

1. Misrepresentation of Repairability Under ROLAGS

Advertising that damage defined as repairable under the Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standard (ROLAGS) is instead “not repairable”.

Common examples include claims that:

• Cracks longer than six inches or a "Dollar Bill" require replacement.
• Long crack repairs are unsafe.
• Cracks of a certain size “compromise structural integrity.”
• Crack Repairs “won’t hold.”
• Damage larger than a quarter, dollar bill, or credit card must be replaced.
• Any crack reaching the edge of the windshield is automatically not repairable.

These simplified “rules” (e.g., the “6-inch rule” or “Dollar Bill Rule”) are often used as blanket replacement triggers, despite ROLAGS allowing for repair of longer cracks.

2. The “Edge Crack” Misrepresentation

Advertisements that state that if a crack reaches the edge of the windshield, it cannot be repaired.

However:

• Approximately 90% of the repairable crack market is edge cracks (and roughly 80% of replacements)
• Campfield's patents are specific to reparing edge cracks.
• Edge cracks result from manufacturing defects and installation stresses around the perimeter.
• The perimeter region fractures 2.5–3.5 times more easily than the central area.
• Edge cracks extend beyond six inches rapidly (up to 95% of the time), because of underlying perimeter stress factors such as:
• The "Tension Bulge" or Weak-Spot that causes the fracture
• Induce/Installation stress causes a fracture (the size of a pinhead) to crack-out rapidly
• Thermal stress caused by heat absorption and temperature variation by the Black Frit Band increases both of those stresses.

Declaring all edge cracks non-repairable without evaluating them under recognized standards is misleading consumers.

3. Claims of “Restoring Structural Integrity” Without Admissible Proof

Safelite and other windshield repair manufacturers advertising that their repair systems or resins:

• Are "stronger and last longer"
• Restore structural integrity
• Restore strength
• Restore safety

Unless supported by court-admissible scientific testing specific to the windshield repair system, such claims are unsubstantiated.

The relevant benchmark cited by proponents of objective testing is the ROLAGS Mechanical Strength Test using the 3-Point Bend method. This customized evaluation is derived from the long-established Standard Test Method for Strength of Glass by Flexure (ASTM D790). It compares:

• the mechanical strength of NEW laminated glass
• the mechanical strength of REPAIRED laminated glass (by the Manufacturer's System)
  

A Windshield Repair System is comprised of the: (a) tool and its many components, (b) resin, (c) curing procedure, and (d) curing light.

The ROLAGS Mechanical Strength Test by 3-Point Bend reveals that Safety and Structural Integrity are restored with a strength score of at least 100% with chip repairs and a score of at least 120% for long crack repairs is recommended. These scores also meet the insurance company's contractual obligation to the consumer of pre-loss condition.

Without this comparative data, claims of restored safety, structural integrity or strength restoration lack documented scientific support.

4. Retail Repair Shops Relying on Unsupported Manufacturer Claims

Retail Auto Glass Repair and Replacement Busineses that advertise restored structural integrity, strength, or safety should be able to produce admissible test data from their Manufacturer or Supplier to support those claims.

Absent such documentation, relying solely on marketing materials and sales pitches may expose the business to:

•  The Lanham Act
• Deceptive Trade Practices
• Product Liability exposure
• Negligence claims 
  

Repairing a critical safety device (a windshield contributes to airbag deployment performance, airbag backboard, impact and penetration protection and roof crush resistance) requires by a court ruling, documented scientific validation—not unverified marketing claims, customer reviews, manufacturer training or certification from the repair system manufacturer or supplier.  See ROLAGS Lab Tests Explained at the bottom of this page.

5. Steering Through Misrepresentation of Insurance “National Warranty”

Safelite's marketing claims suggest that if a customer uses a non-network shop, they will lose access to the insurer’s “national warranty.”

However:

• Insurers do not issue a warranty on glass repairs or replacements.
• Why it is Impossible- Neither the insurer nor Safelite is a contractual party to the repair contract between the shop and their customer.
• Representing that a customer forfeits a non-existent “national warranty” (sometimes referred to as the “phantom warranty”) is meant to mislead consumers about their rights.

Note: May need to add the insurer and Deceptive Trade Practices.

6. Steering Through Cost Misrepresentation

• Safelite - "That shop is not approved by the insurer and you may pay more if you use that shop" without proof of that shops pricing.
• Safelite - That shop is charging more than the "fair and resonable pricing" when it is false.
• WIth a long crack - a crack is Repair v. Replacement. If a consumer is told by Safelite, "that shop is charging more than the "fair and reasonable price for a repair". That is false, a repairable crack is far less expensive than a replacement and a replacment is what they will get at Safelite.

Note: May need to add the insurer and Deceptive Trade Practices.

7. Bait-and-Switch Practices

• Advertising windshield chip and crack repair services but systematically converting repairable crack damage into replacements is a classic “bait and switch” tactic.
• Repair warranties such as "Safelite's National Warranty" that are a credit on a replacement. If it was paid by insurance the consumer gets nothing.

Consumers are drawn in with the promise of a lower-cost repair or a misleading warranty but are then told replacement is mandatory under arbitrary or non-standard criteria.

Conclusion

In the AGRR industry, claims regarding repairability, structural integrity, safety, and insurance coverage should be supported by recognized standards and admissible testing. Blanket rules, unsupported strength claims, and insurance-related misrepresentations can expose businesses to the new law under, Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc. 91 F.4th (6th Cir. 2024)).

Clear alignment with ROLAGS and scientifically validated mechanical strength testing provides a defensible, evidence-based foundation for repair representations.

 OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL SIXTH CIRCUIT REVIEW

Summary - Those within the industry seem to understand the implications of Safelite’s false advertising quite well. Even back in 2015, when Ultra Bond initially filed suit, neutral parties within the industry demonstrated a strong understanding of the connection between Safelite’s statements and consumer choice.

Ultra Bond itself framed its case not only as justice for itself, but as justice for the millions of consumers who Safelite “deceived…into unnecessary replacements. “Ultra Bond’s ability to prevail on a Lanham Act claim could serve as a win for consumers. Individual consumers have little recourse with respect to false advertising that leads to unnecessary spending. With the Sixth Circuit opening the door for aggrieved industry rivals to use consumer influence as an element of proximate cause, Companies have less incentive to deceive consumers knowing a rival company may be able to take action against them.

Campfield v. Safelite, Inc. started as a case, with multiple claims. One claim, however, led to a decision that may have lasting implications on the way companies choose to advertise. In reversing the decision to dismiss Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim, the Sixth Circuit opened the door to a broader standard on false advertising lawsuits moving forward. As a result, companies may think twice before deceiving consumers if they believe a competitor or industry peer may be adversely affected by it. While there are concerns that this may be too broad a scope, consumers come away from this decision as indirect winners.

Can an Insured Consumer Sue the Insurance Company, TPA or Insurance Agent?

YES, The Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc. (91 F.4th 407) specifically addresses false advertising under the Lanham Act, but its implications extend to several other legal theories that a consumer could potentially pursue.

In this case, the court focused on Safelite’s "dollar-bill rule" (only cracks 6 inches or shorter can be repaired), which contradicted the industry ROLAGS (Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standards) that allowed repairs up to 14 inches.

If an insurance company or agent makes similar false statements, a consumer may have grounds to sue for the following:

1. Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Trade Practices

Most states have Consumer Protection Acts (CPAs) or Deceptive Trade Practices Acts (DTPA). A consumer can sue if the insurer or agent:

• Misrepresents the quality or characteristics of a service: Falsely claiming a repair is "unsafe" when industry standards (ROLAGS) say otherwise.
• Engages in "bait and switch" tactics: Steering consumers toward a more expensive replacement (which may involve a deductible) instead of a cheaper repair that is often fully covered.

2. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Insurance companies have a legal duty to act in "good faith." Telling a policyholder that a repair is "not covered" or "impossible" when it is actually both viable and covered under the policy terms can be considered bad faith.

• The Argument: The insurer is prioritizing its profit (or its partnership with a glass replacement company) over the policyholder’s right to a safe, cost-effective repair.

3. Common Law Fraud / Misrepresentation

To win a fraud claim, a consumer generally must prove:

• The agent/insurer made a false statement of material fact (e.g., "It is physically impossible to safely repair a 7-inch crack").
• They knew it was false (evidence in Campfield showed Safelite knew cracks up to 24 inches were safe).
• The consumer relied on that statement and suffered financial loss (e.g., paying a deductible for a new windshield they didn't need).

4. Unjust Enrichment

If the insurance agent or company receives a kickback or higher profit by forcing a replacement instead of a repair through false claims, the consumer may sue to recover the "ill-gotten" gains the company made at the consumer's expense.

Summary of the Campfield Context

The False Claim -The Reality (ROLAGS/Campfield)

Potential Legal Claims:

• Consumer Fraud - "Cracks over 6 inches are unsafe."ROLAGS permits repairs up to 14 inches.
• Bad Faith / Breach of Contract"Your policy doesn't cover long cracks."Policies often cover "repairs" generally.
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation"Replacement is the only option."Safelite internal docs admitted 24" is safe.Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Note: While Campfield was a battle between a manufacturer (Ultra Bond) and a service provider (Safelite), the court's recognition that these statements were "literally false" provides a powerful evidentiary foundation for individual consumers to bring their own suits.

Can the Campfield Case make way for a Class Action on the

Insurance Companies and TPA Safelite

YES, the Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc. (91 F.4th 407) ruling provides a significant legal foundation for potential class actions against the insurance industry and Safelite. The case centered on Safelite’s "dollar-bill rule" (the claim that cracks longer than six inches are unrepairable), which the court found could be "literally false" given the ROLAGS industry standard allowing repairs up to 14 inches.

Potential Causes of Action for a Class Action



A class action firm could leverage several legal theories based on the findings in Campfield:

• False Advertising (Lanham Act & State Laws): The core of the Campfield case. Firms can argue that Safelite and insurers misrepresented the "nature, characteristics, or qualities" of windshield repair to steer consumers toward more expensive replacements.
• Consumer Fraud / Deceptive Trade Practices: Most states have statutes prohibiting deceptive business acts. Telling a consumer a repair is "unsafe" when industry standards say otherwise is a prime example of a deceptive practice.
• Insurance Bad Faith / Breach of Contract: Insurers have a duty to act in good faith. Systematically denying coverage for a viable repair (often a $0-deductible service) to force a replacement (requiring a deductible) could be framed as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith.
• Unjust Enrichment: Safelite and insurers may have been unjustly enriched by collecting deductibles or increasing replacement volume through misrepresentation.
• Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA): As seen in recent settlements in California and Illinois, Safelite has already faced "qui tam" (whistleblower) actions for fraudulent billing and deceptive practices.

Judicial Estoppel: Can it be used?

Judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking a legal position in one proceeding that is inconsistent with a position they successfully took in an earlier proceeding.

• The "Literally False" Admission: In Campfield, Safelite's internal documents admitted that repairs up to 24 inches could be safe, even while they told the public and insurers that only 6 inches was safe.
• Application to Class Actions: While Safelite did not "win" on this point (the 6th Circuit reversed the summary judgment in their favor), the court's recognition of the "literal falsity" of their safety claims makes it very difficult for Safelite to now argue in a new class action that their 6-inch rule was based on legitimate safety data.
• "Mend the Hold" Doctrine: This is a related estoppel theory specifically used in insurance law. It prevents an insurer from changing their reason for denying a claim once litigation has started. If an insurer previously denied a repair based on the "6-inch rule," they may be estopped from later claiming a different technical reason for the denial.
•  

Recent Litigation & Settlements (2025-2026)

• $31 Million Settlement (January 2025): Safelite recently settled whistleblower lawsuits in California and Illinois for $31 million regarding fraudulent billing for parts and services.
• Ongoing DOJ Scrutiny: There are reports of ongoing probes into Safelite’s "self-preferencing" behavior as a Third-Party Administrator (TPA), where they allegedly steer customers to their own shops by misrepresenting repair standards.