In Zamani v. SharkNinja, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128075, the District Court concluded that a plaintiff’s Chapter 93A “omission” claim was not well-pleaded enough to survive a motion to dismiss based on hyperlinks that rebutted the alleged omission. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer violated Chapter 93A by failing to disclose that the blade assembly in its BL610 blender was not secured and could fall out, which posed a safety hazard. This alleged omission, according to the plaintiff, deceived consumers into purchasing a product that was less valuable than advertised.

Although omissions may be actionable under Chapter 93A if they do mislead consumers or if they (i) fall within the penumbra of an established concept of unfairness, (ii) are immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, and (iii) cause substantial injury to consumers, the plaintiff admitted that the manufacturer’s product page on an online marketplace included links to user guides that contained multiple, explicit warnings about the unsecured blades and the risks of laceration, as well as diagrams depicting that the blade assembly was a detached component. According to the district court, even though the links were not prominently displayed, the information was available pre-purchase, which defeated the claim of a deceptive omission, as a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances would have discovered the information. The district court was able to consider the user guides under Rule 12(b)(6) because the plaintiff attached them to the complaint.

A district court’s decision is not controlling in other cases, although it may be persuasive. While making disclosures available pre-sale forestalled a Chapter 93A omission claim based on the facts of this case, manufacturers wanting to protect themselves further against such claims should consider requiring consumers to affirmatively acknowledge the existence of and their ability to review all relevant materials during the purchase process and before the consumer makes the ultimate purchasing decision. For example, manufacturers commonly require consumers to agree to terms and conditions of sale by checking a box pre-purchase (while making the terms and conditions available for review). A manufacturer wanting further protection against omission claims might include in the same process an acknowledgment by the consumer that the relevant user guide was available to review and download. Manufacturers wanting this further protection should make sure their disclosures comply with Massachusetts and federal law regarding online transactions and the creation of online contracts.