Sensationalist title and article but even from the article's description the ruling seems much more reasonable that claimed.<p>If I understand correctly:<p>Garage was sued in part for violating a consumer protection law that protects against unfair and deceptive practices like "<i>charging for repairs that are in fact not performed</i>".<p>The court ruled that the garage has not violated that law because they had in fact performed the tyre rotation. The issue was rather that the rotation was performed <i>incorrectly</i>. Presumably if the rotation had not been performed the customer would not have lost a wheel in the first place...<p>Sounds reasonable to me.<p>If the issue is one of recovering legal costs then that should be addressed specifically in law.