SW Engines Lawsuit: Allegations, Trial Loss, and 2023 Reversal

The SW Engines lawsuit is a Wisconsin Department of Justice consumer-protection action filed in 2017 against Midwest Auto Recycling, LLC and more than a dozen affiliated entities, including SW Engines, LLC, alleging deceptive marketing, misrepresentation of used engines and transmissions, and unfair billing. A Milwaukee County jury and trial judge largely sided with the company in the first trial. In July 2023, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the key rulings that had narrowed the state’s case and ordered a new trial.¹

Who SW Engines Actually Is

SW Engines, LLC is one of at least ten online storefronts run out of a single Cudahy, Wisconsin address under the umbrella of Midwest Auto Recycling, LLC. The Better Business Bureau’s profile for the network lists alternate names including Engine & Transmission World, Got Engines, Engine Shopper, Quality Used Engines, SW Transmissions, Southwest Engines, and Remanns, among others. Related entities were also registered in Oklahoma, Missouri, Michigan, and Kansas, many sharing identical warranty language and contact information.²³

Alfred Talyansky, the principal of Midwest Auto Recycling and a named individual defendant in the lawsuit, testified that the multiple websites were deliberate. “The more space you take up in Google, the more traffic you get,” he said.⁴ A defense attorney called the practice “perfectly appropriate and legal.” The BBB has said the proliferation of brand names lets the company dilute its complaint history across multiple profiles.⁵

What the State Alleged

The Wisconsin DOJ filed suit on June 23, 2017 in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, on referral from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Wisconsin BBB.⁶ The complaint alleged violations of three Wisconsin statutes:

Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1) — false representations about the quality, mileage, and testing of used engines and transmissions.
Wis. Stat. § 100.18(10r) — websites that falsely suggested a physical presence in communities where the business had none.
Wis. Stat. § 100.195(2)(a) — billing consumers for goods they had not agreed to purchase.⁷

Then–Attorney General Brad Schimel asked the court for an injunction, financial penalties, and restitution for affected consumers.⁸

The Consumer Complaints Behind the Case

Both DATCP and the BBB fielded hundreds of complaints over more than five years from customers across the country. Across the full network of brand names, the BBB tallied close to 400 complaints; the Southwest Engines profile alone carried an F rating with 50 unresolved complaints.⁹³

The recurring themes:

Engines that smoked on startup, lacked compression, leaked, or contained metal shavings, with mileage that did not match the sales quote.⁵
Extended warranties sold by the company, but refund requests routed to an outside warranty provider that had not collected the payment and could not refund it in full.⁹
Products that never shipped, missed delivery timelines, and slow or unresponsive refund handling.

One frequently cited complainant, Leonardo Diaz of Middle River, Maryland, said he spent $7,843 after his engine arrived defective, and that a promised reimbursement check never came.⁵ The company has consistently argued that the complaint volume is small next to more than 50,000 transactions processed in a three-year span, and defense attorney Douglas Rose has said many failures traced to improper installation by unqualified mechanics.

The First Trial and Why the State Lost

The case went to a jury before Milwaukee County Circuit Judge William Sosnay. Two pretrial rulings shaped the outcome. Judge Sosnay barred evidence involving out-of-state consumers, and he required the state to prove that Wisconsin customers had suffered a monetary loss because of any misrepresentation.¹

Under those constraints, the jury cleared the company on most counts, finding advertisements directed at Wisconsin consumers were not deceptive and that the state had not proven any Wisconsin consumer suffered a monetary loss.¹⁰ The jury did find that four of the company’s websites misrepresented their business locations, and that Talyansky knew of and controlled those representations.¹¹ Even so, Judge Sosnay entered judgment for Midwest and dismissed the case, reasoning that the required monetary loss had not been shown.

The 2023 Appellate Reversal

The state appealed. On July 25, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed both of the pretrial rulings that had defined the first trial. Judge M. Joseph Donald, writing for the panel, focused on the text of Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1), which prohibits false representations “placed before the public, in this state.” The comma, he wrote, was decisive. “If ‘in this state’ modified ‘before the public,’ then there would be no need for a comma.” The phrase modifies the act of publishing the advertisement from within Wisconsin, not the location of the consumer who reads it. In practice, that means a Wisconsin business can be pursued for fraud aimed at buyers anywhere in the country.¹

The panel also held that the statute does not require the state to prove monetary loss in a government enforcement action.¹¹ Together, the two rulings mean that the out-of-state customer testimony excluded from the first trial is admissible on retrial, and the state can proceed without having to tie each misrepresentation to a specific dollar loss.

Where the Case Stands

The appellate decision sent the matter back to Milwaukee County Circuit Court for a new trial under substantially broader rules. The Wisconsin DOJ can now put on evidence from customers outside Wisconsin and is no longer required to prove monetary loss to make its case against Talyansky and the network of companies operating under Midwest Auto Recycling. Public reporting in the available record does not show that the retrial has concluded.

What SW Engines’ Warranty Actually Says

The lawsuit is separate from the warranty terms posted on the SW Engines website, but those terms matter for anyone weighing a purchase. Buyers must activate the warranty within 10 business days of delivery, or coverage drops to a much shorter “Parts Only” policy. Warranty claims require a diagnostic report from an ASE-certified shop, submitted through an online portal within five business days; handwritten maintenance records are not accepted.¹²

The company’s liability is limited to a replacement engine or a refund of the purchase price. Labor, towing, storage, rental cars, and other consequential damages are excluded. Returns and cancellations carry a 25% handling fee, and the customer pays shipping. Labor reimbursement, where offered, is capped at $50 per hour with a $2,500 aggregate maximum. The policy also states that odometer mileage for used engines “cannot be practically determined” and is “not subject to known state and federal laws.”¹²

1
Wisconsin Judicial Institute. Punctuation Counts: State Wins by a Comma in Consumer Protection Appeal
2
BBB. Engine Shopper, LLC BBB Business Profile
3
Constant Contact / BBB. BBB Warning on SW Transmissions, Engine Shopper, Related Firms
4
Fox 6 Now. Accused Cudahy Auto Parts Seller
5
WMAR 2 News. Online Engine Seller Facing Legal Action Operates Under 10 Names
6
CBS 58. Wisconsin DOJ Suing Cudahy-Based Midwest Auto Recycling
7
FindLaw. State v. Talyansky, 2022AP788
8
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Used Auto Parts Company Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
9
BBB. Southwest Engines BBB Business Profile
10
Wisconsin Bar InsideTrack. State v. Talyansky, 2022AP788
11
Wisconsin Court System. State v. Talyansky, 2022AP788
12
SW Engines. SW Engines Warranty Policy