"Judge Garbis, in other words, isn't confirming PA's argument that the author-PA relationship is not a consumer matter--rather, he's saying that the plaintiffs haven't sufficiently demonstrated that it is. He makes a similar determination with regard to the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and fraud."
"Though PA will likely dispute this, the dismissal doesn't vindicate their business practices or endorse their counter-claims. Rather, it leaves the door open for the plaintiffs to return with stronger arguments to bolster their case. Obviously I can't reach into the minds of the lawyers to see why they decided not to do so. But I have to be honest--it seems shoddy to me. If they felt they had sufficient grounds to base the original complaint on the MCPA, and to make claims of fraud, why would they not re-file? (Or, perhaps, more adequately state their argument in the first place?) It makes the lawsuit seem like some sort of blue-sky effort, launched without adequate commitment and folding at the first roadblock."