Cox sues CDK, cites anticompetitive practices

[ryan.gerardi]

So this is happening now...

http://www.autonews.com/article/201.../cox-sues-cdk-cites-anticompetitive-practices

 

[yagoparamo]

A bit of insight from Cliff;

http://www.thebanksreport.com/legalpolitical/cox-automotive-files-lawsuit-cdk-global/

 

[Alex Snyder]

This is nothing but good!

Not only does Cox have the money and legal team to win, but it also means they've made the decision to keep the Dealertrack DMS open. It probably means they've made the decision to do this with all Cox Automotive products. Last I was involved, this was still a debate. I'm super stoked to see they made the choice I wanted!

And holy shit... it sounds like they have some pretty compelling evidence of collusion

 

[Alexander Lau]

Yep, saw that last night. Crazy! Looks like collusion.

 

[craigh]

 

[Brendan Dolan]

Good. Getting charged a fee to integrate software into software that I pay for, on a local server, just chapped my you know what for years.

 

[yagoparamo]

@Brendan Dolan

It would be nice is it was just that, buy you must pay a recurring fee--the same fee--X the number of vendors that need that fee.

On top of that, they ask for a contract with each vendor limiting what the vendor can do with your data claiming that they are protecting you when what they are doing is limiting distribution so they can keep charging every vendor (which ends up funneling back to you).

HOW DID NADA ALLOW THIS?

 

[Adam Schaefer]

Is there anyone in the dealership world that is on CDK/ReyRey's side here? Obviously, there isn't a popular vote component of the legal system, but they could lose their trump card over the automotive industry while their brand is universally hated. Not good for CDK.

 

[Brendan Dolan]

@Brendan Dolan

It would be nice is it was just that, buy you must pay a recurring fee--the same fee--X the number of vendors that need that fee.

On top of that, they ask for a contract with each vendor limiting what the vendor can do with your data claiming that they are protecting you when what they are doing is limiting distribution so they can keep charging every vendor (which ends up funneling back to you).

HOW DID NADA ALLOW THIS?

I have no idea how it was allowed. They had my group by the short and curlies by time I took over vendor selection and marketing. In some instances, for writeback RCI access, a vendor would charge me more for Reynolds fees than for their software.

Lets see, protecting me from my own data, and charging all of my vendors who then pass those costs along to me. Highway robbery. I'm surprised it took this long to have the industry finally say enough is enough.

 

[Steve Stauning]

The question of whether there are any dealers on the side of CDK/Rey is interesting. The answer is probably somewhere between "no" and "hell no."

Over a decade ago, one of these two commissioned a study of their customer base. (This was before they started charging these crazy fees.) And, they discovered that about 80% of their dealer-customers HATED their DMS provider, but less than 5% planned to make a change.

Until dealers suck it up and make the change to an open DMS like DealerTrack, CDK and REY will continue with business as usual. I will be surprised if this suit (if victorious) improves the dealers' world one iota. Likely, it will just mean even higher connection fees after CDK and REY pay their fines...