A California federal court recently dismissed all claims arising from the alleged solicitation of customers by a manufacturer. Future Energy Group, LLC d/b/a Future Energy v. ChargePoint, Inc., 2026 WL 1962838 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026). Reseller Future Energy Group sued ChargePoint, Inc., an electric vehicle charging equipment manufacturer, alleging that ChargePoint improperly solicited Future Energy’s current customer relationships in violation of their reseller agreement addendum’s nonsolicitation provision. Future Energy alleged that ChargePoint installed equipment at two Stellantis-affiliated dealerships without Future Energy’s involvement, which Future Energy claimed breached the provision by directly pursuing relationships with Stellantis. Future Energy also alleged that ChargePoint misappropriated its dealer lists in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), intentionally interfered with Future Energy’s prospective economic relationships, and committed promissory fraud based on a letter purportedly assuring that ChargePoint would have no competitive use of Future Energy’s customer relationships. ChargePoint successfully moved to dismiss all causes of action.
As to the breach of contract claim, the nonsolicitation provision required three predicate conditions: that ChargePoint (1) interacted with current Future Energy customers covered by the provision, (2) knew of their current customer status, and (3) affirmatively solicited their business. Future Energy did not meet the first condition because it implausibly pled that the dealerships were its customers on information and belief—information that should be squarely within the possession of Future Energy. The second condition was not met because the dealer list did not provide ChargePoint with more than generalized knowledge of Future Energy’s purported customer relationships and did not identify which dealers actually purchased from Future Energy. The third condition was not met because Future Energy’s conclusory allegations did not support a plausible inference that ChargePoint actually initiated contact with the dealerships. Accordingly, the breach of contract claim failed. The court dismissed the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim because the breach of contract claim could not be the basis of the claim and another independently wrongful act was not pled. The court also dismissed the CUTSA claim because Future Energy failed to sufficiently identify a protectable trade secret, allege any details regarding its dealer lists’ independent economic value from remaining a secret, or allege its labor or investment in such list. Future Energy also failed to plausibly allege that ChargePoint actually used the alleged trade secret information to solicit customers. Finally, the promissory fraud claim was dismissed because the letter from ChargePoint concerned other issues and did not contain an actionable promise not to compete for customers. The court dismissed the entire first amended complaint, but permitted Future Energy leave to amend its claims, with the exception that the letter could not be used to support a fraud theory.