Other district courts have held that two or three pre-sale complaints were sufficient. See, e.g., Borkman v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV 16-2225 FMO (MRWx), 2017 WL 4082420, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2017) (finding allegations sufficient where "three complaints pre-date plaintiff's purchase of her vehicle"); Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-CV-00412-WHO, 2016 WL 5897740, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (finding allegations sufficient where "two of these complaints are dated prior to the time Meyers must have purchased her car"); but see Fisher v. Honda N. Am., Inc., No. LA CV13-09285 JAK, 2014 WL 2808188, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2014) ("It is not plausible to suggest that [defendant] was on notice of the defect ‘at the time of sale’ based on one customer complaint" (citing Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1147-48 )).

Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendant had access to these complaints via the NHTSA database before they purchased their vehicles. See Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-CV-00412-WHO, 2016 WL 5897740, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (finding pre-sale knowledge adequately alleged when NHTSA complaints were dated prior to plaintiff's purchase and it was reasonable to infer that manufacturer had knowledge of complaints because it used the NHTSA website to communicate information to consumers); Wildin v. FCA U.S. LLC, No. 3:17CV-02594-GPC-MDD, 2018 WL 3032986, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2018) (finding pre-sale knowledge adequately pled where a single consumer complaint was alleged along with other indicators such as a high rate of complaints made directly to the manufacturer and testing data). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that adequately pleading pre-sale notice also does not require the level of hyper-technical specificity in the consumers' description of the problem with their cars that Defendant demands here.

Contemporaneous online consumer complaints, which Defendant allegedly monitors, (SCAC ¶¶ 490-93), bolster a finding of knowledge at least as early as November 2015, the date of the earliest NHTSA complaint, (id. ¶¶ 344-45). Given the predating NHTSA and consumer complaints and Defendant's May 10, 2018 service bulletin, the Court follows the reasoning of its prior dismissal order to conclude that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged presale knowledge, (SCAC ¶¶ 344-45; Order Re: MTD FAC 12); see also, e.g., Myers v. BMW of N Am., LLC, No. 16-cv-00412-WHO, 2016 WL 5897740, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016).

Under such circumstances, the Court finds the number of pre-sale complaints asserted in the SAC sufficient to establish Honda's knowledge of the Infotainment System Defect. See Parrish, 463 F. Supp. 3d at 1052 (noting district courts in this circuit "have held that two or three pre-sale complaints were sufficient"); see also Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2016 WL 5897740, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (finding allegations sufficient where "two of the[ ] complaints [were] dated prior to the time [plaintiff] must have purchased her car"); cf. Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1148 (finding twelve undated complaints and two complaints that post-dated plaintiff's purchase by at least two years "d[id] not support an inference that [defendant] was aware of the defect at the time it sold the [product] to [p]laintiffs"). Although the SAC references an additional customer complaint regarding a Honda Civic posted on November 22, 2015, prior to Beech, Meisel, and Chiulli's purchases, said complaint appeared on a third-party website apparently devoted to Honda Accords, namely, "driveaccord.net," and, consequently, the Court has not considered it in determining whether Honda had notice of the Infotainment System Defect in Civics prior to plaintiffs' purchases.

As for showing reliance on an alleged omission, the standard is more relaxed, and "[t]here are ... various ways in which a plaintiff can demonstrate that she would have been aware of a defect, had disclosure been made." Madani , 2019 WL 3753433, at *11 (citing Daniel , 806 F.3d at 1225 ; Myers v. BMW of North America , 2016 WL 5897740, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) ).

On the other hand, Plaintiffs argue the NHTSA complaints are sufficient to establish pre-sale knowledge. See Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-00412, at *4, 2016 WL 5897740 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (finding two consumer complaints dated before the plaintiffs’ purchase were sufficient to establish the defendant's pre-sale knowledge when read in conjunction with the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant knew of the alleged defect through "dealerships, pre-release data, and training manuals ...."). Plaintiffs also argue their allegations are sufficient at this stage of the litigation, as they cannot be expected to have personal knowledge of Volkswagen's internal communications.

However, "customer complaints may support knowledge when they are submitted to a forum the defendant is likely to view." Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2016 WL 5897740, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (emphasis added). In contrast, customer complaints might not support pre-sale knowledge where, unlike here, the "Plaintiffs [do] not allege[] that Defendant tracked, or was even aware of, complaints posted to the cited third-party websites."

"For fraud based claims under the CLRA, [a] plaintiff must also plead actual reliance." Myers v. BMW of N. Am., No. 16-CV-00412-WHO, 2016 WL 5897740, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "To prove reliance on an omission, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's injury-producing conduct."

Defendant instead contends that the operative complaint "fail[s] to plead facts plausibly establishing" that any Plaintiff "'would have been aware of' the alleged defect if disclosed," since Plaintiffs "do not allege that they heard, read or saw any advertisements or other representations from Defendant prior to purchasing their vehicles." Mot. at 19 (quoting Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-cv-00412-WHO, 2016 WL 5897740, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016)).

Under the consumer-protection laws of those states, a plaintiff must plead and prove that, had a disclosure been made, she would have seen or heard it. See Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2015) (to survive summary judgment, plaintiffs had to show that they would have been aware of a disclosure if one had been made); Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-CV-0412, 2016 WL 5897740, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to plead any facts showing that, had a disclosure been made, she would have been aware of it); De Bouse v. Bayer, 922 N.E.2d 309, 314-16 (Ill. 2009) (to maintain a failure-to-disclose claim, a plaintiff must have seen or heard a statement from which the information was omitted). The Court therefore grants Polaris's motion to dismiss these claims (with the exception of plaintiffs' "unlawful" and "unfair" claims under California's Unfair Competition Law).