Automotive lawsuits in 2026 span defective-vehicle class actions against Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, GM, and Ford; federal and state enforcement against dealerships for hidden fees and discriminatory financing; and the everyday individual remedies consumers use for lemons, warranty breaches, dealer fraud, and bad repair work. If you own a vehicle that has been recalled, keeps breaking, or was sold to you with undisclosed fees or damage, you are likely covered by at least one active case or statute. What follows is a working map of where those cases stand and what you can do on your own.
Active Class Actions to Check
Several class actions are open to claims or moving toward trial. If your vehicle appears below, the class notice will usually spell out deadlines and required proof.
Hyundai and Kia: Theft, Airbags, and Ignition Cylinders
The largest recent automotive class action, In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (No. 8:22-ML-3052) in the Central District of California, targets certain 2011–2022 Kia and Hyundai models sold without engine immobilizers. The settlement is valued at $80 million to $145 million and received final approval in October 2024, but payments are on hold pending appeals. Benefits include a free software upgrade, up to $300 in reimbursement for anti-theft devices, and payments for theft losses that can reach 60% of a vehicle’s value for total losses.
A separate multistate settlement announced in December 2025 by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other participating states requires Hyundai and Kia to provide free zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protectors. Up to $4.5 million in restitution is available for owners whose vehicles were stolen or damaged after April 29, 2025, if they had already received or scheduled the software update. Claims close March 31, 2027.
A third case, a $62.1 million settlement over defective airbag control units in Hyundai and Kia vehicles, is accepting claims through March 29, 2027, for out-of-pocket expenses and a separate payment.
Nissan Sunroofs and Door Latches
In Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc. (No. 3:17-cv-00517, N.D. Cal.), owners of certain 2009–2020 Nissan and Infiniti models allege panoramic sunroofs shatter spontaneously. The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification in November 2024 for consumers in California, New York, Colorado, and Florida. A jury trial is scheduled for September 28, 2026.
A newer case, Khalifa v. Nissan North America, Inc. (No. 3:25-cv-02777, N.D. Cal.), filed in March 2025, alleges defective door lock actuators in 2013–2025 Altima, 2014–2025 Rogue, and 2013–2025 Sentra models. The complaint says the defect can cause doors to lock or unlock on their own, fail to open, or swing open while the vehicle is moving. It remains in early stages.
GM’s 6.2-Liter L87 Engine
Multiple 2025 lawsuits target GM’s 6.2-liter V8 L87 engine used in 2021–2024 model year vehicles. Hernandez v. General Motors LLC (No. 2:25-cv-00085) was filed in Georgia in April 2025 under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and Rittereiser et al. v. General Motors, LLC (No. 4:25-cv-11481) followed in May 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan, with Hagens Berman as interim co-lead class counsel. The suits allege the engines are prone to failure and pose safety hazards.
ARC Airbag Inflators
Personal injury claims over ARC Automotive airbag inflators that can rupture and send metal shrapnel into vehicle cabins are consolidated as MDL No. 3051 in the Northern District of Georgia. The litigation involves vehicles from GM, Ford, Stellantis, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, and others, and remains active through 2026.
Ford Dealer Warranty Reimbursement
This one is a dealer-versus-manufacturer case rather than a consumer class action, but it affects EV warranty service. In December 2025 two Ford dealerships filed 440 Jericho Turnpike Auto Sales LLC v. Ford Motor Company (No. 2:25-cv-13909) in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging Ford systematically underpays warranty claims for parts and labor, including EV battery replacements that can cost over $25,000 each. One plaintiff alleged receiving $600 per battery replacement instead of the roughly $22,600 required under New York’s Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act, a $615,000 shortfall over 28 batteries.
Recently Resolved Settlements
Some claims windows have closed and others have paid out, so it is worth checking whether you were part of any of these.
- Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation: $1.2 billion in price-fixing settlements paid authorized claimants in September 2025. The claims deadline passed in January 2023.
- GM ignition switch class action: settled for $120 million in March 2024.
- Nissan CVT transmission: Nissan agreed in April 2025 to settle claims over 2015–2018 Murano and 2016–2018 Maxima transmissions.
- Berman v. GM: $42 million settlement over engines that consumed excessive oil.
- Ford PowerShift transmission: a 2020 settlement provided cash payments, discounts, or buybacks to Ford Fiesta and Focus owners.
Dealership Fraud Enforcement
If you were charged mandatory fees a dealer didn’t disclose, sold add-ons you didn’t agree to, or quoted a monthly payment that didn’t match the advertised price, federal and state regulators have been unusually active.
In March 2026 the FTC sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups, publicly naming them in May 2026. FTC consumer protection chief Christopher Mufarrige listed practices the agency treats as illegal: advertising prices that exclude mandatory fees, basing prices on rebates unavailable to most buyers, hiding down payment requirements, conditioning prices on dealer financing, mandating add-ons, and advertising vehicles that don’t exist.
Lindsay Automotive Group
In April 2026 the FTC and Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown announced a settlement with Lindsay Automotive Group making over $75 million in consumer charges eligible for refunds for transactions between April 2020 and December 2025. The dealership chain allegedly advertised low prices, then added mandatory fees and unwanted service plans, tire protection, and GAP insurance. Lindsay must also pay $3.1 million to the Maryland AG. The proposed order, pending final approval in the Eastern District of Virginia, permanently bars misrepresenting vehicle costs and requires express consumer consent before adding charges.
Asbury Automotive Group
The FTC’s administrative complaint against Asbury Automotive Group and three of its Texas dealerships (David McDavid Ford Fort Worth, David McDavid Honda of Frisco, and David McDavid Honda of Irving) alleges “payment packing,” where dealerships convinced customers to accept higher monthly payments and filled the gap with unauthorized add-ons. The complaint also alleges Black consumers were charged an average of $298 more and Latino consumers $214 more for the same add-ons than non-Latino White consumers. Internal audits reportedly described these practices as appearing in over 50% of deals at some locations. Asbury called the allegations “false and unfounded.” The case remains pending before an administrative law judge.
Manchester City Nissan
A joint FTC and Connecticut Attorney General action against Manchester City Nissan (Chase Nissan) alleges deceptive certified pre-owned pricing, unauthorized add-ons, and inflated government fees. Examples cited include a $5,295 “inspection fee” on a $15,700 vehicle and over $7,000 in unauthorized add-ons on a $20,500 purchase. The case is pending in the District of Connecticut.
GM and OnStar Data
In January 2026 the FTC finalized a 20-year consent order against General Motors and OnStar over collecting and selling precise geolocation and driving behavior data from millions of vehicles without adequate consent. The order imposes a five-year ban on sharing that data with consumer reporting agencies and requires affirmative express consent, data deletion on request, and the option to disable geolocation tracking. No monetary penalty was imposed.
State Actions
New York obtained $3.2 million in penalties and restitution from eight dealers for unlawful fees on previously leased vehicles. Illinois reported a $20 million settlement in 2024 with a dealership chain over bait-and-switch marketing. Connecticut secured a $1.5 million settlement with Carvana, including a $1 million consumer restitution fund, over title and registration failures. In 2024 the FTC and Arizona AG settled with Coulter Motor Company for $2.6 million over bait-and-switch pricing and discriminatory financing targeting Latino consumers.
The CARS Rule Is Not in Effect
The FTC’s Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule, which would have required price transparency and banned hidden add-ons at the federal level, never took effect. The Fifth Circuit vacated the rule in January 2025 on procedural grounds, finding the FTC skipped a required advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The court did not decide whether the underlying practices are legal. The FTC formally withdrew the rule in February 2026 and maintains the same conduct remains prohibited under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Lemon Laws
Every state has a lemon law, but the thresholds vary. In California, a vehicle qualifies if a warranty-covered defect substantially impairs its use, value, or safety and the manufacturer cannot fix it after a reasonable number of attempts. A rebuttable presumption applies if, within 18 months or 18,000 miles, the same problem required four or more repair attempts, a safety problem required two or more attempts, or the vehicle was out of service for 30 days total. When a vehicle qualifies, the manufacturer must offer a replacement or full refund.
North Carolina covers new passenger vehicles with defects reported within 24 months or 24,000 miles. A vehicle qualifies after four repair attempts for the same defect or 20 cumulative business days out of service within 12 months. Refunds include contract price, sales tax, registration, and finance charges, reduced by a mileage allowance calculated as miles driven divided by 120,000, multiplied by the purchase price.
Most states require written notice to the manufacturer and may require you to go through a dispute resolution program before suing.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, enacted in 1975, covers written and implied warranties on consumer products, including vehicles sold with a written warranty or service contract valued above $25. Used vehicles are covered when they come with a written warranty. The law creates four causes of action: breach of a written warranty, breach of an implied warranty such as merchantability, breach of a service contract, and failure to comply with the Act’s disclosure requirements.
Its definition of “consumer” reaches subsequent owners who receive a vehicle during the warranty period, so dealers and manufacturers cannot defeat a claim by pointing out you weren’t the original buyer. If a warranted defect cannot be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts, the Act requires replacement or refund. Successful plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees, which is what makes these cases economically viable when the damages themselves are modest. The Act also fills gaps in state law: if you miss a lemon law’s mileage or time threshold, you may still have a federal warranty claim.
Suing a Dealership for Fraud or a Missing Title
If a dealer lied about a vehicle’s condition, rolled back the odometer, hid damage, or refuses to deliver your title, your common claims include breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud or negligent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer protection statutes.
A fraud claim requires showing the dealer made a material false statement you relied on. An “as is” clause generally does not shield a dealer from fraud liability, even if it limits warranty claims. Before suing, consumer advocates recommend sending a formal demand letter, verifying the dealer’s legal business entity through the Secretary of State, and getting an independent mechanic’s assessment.
Title delivery is a common flashpoint. Most states require dealers to transfer title within about 30 days. California requires delivery within 15 days after full payment and imposes penalties of $25 per day up to $2,500, tripling to $7,500 if the dealer refuses to pay on demand. Texas allows recovery of attorney’s fees for title violations under its Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Georgia treats willful failure to deliver a title as a misdemeanor. Washington treats Auto Dealers Act violations as per se consumer protection violations.
You can also file complaints. The FTC accepts reports at reportfraud.ftc.gov, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau handles complaints about auto lenders and buy-here-pay-here operations, and state attorneys general are often the most effective channel for individual consumers.
Auto Repair Disputes
For bad or fraudulent repair work, you can sue in small claims court for smaller amounts or civil court for larger ones. Legal grounds include negligence, breach of contract or warranty, fraud for charging for work not performed, and violations of state repair-shop laws.
California’s Automotive Repair Act of 1971 requires shops to give written estimates, get signed authorization before working, contact you before exceeding the estimate, provide itemized invoices identifying whether parts are new, used, or rebuilt, and return replaced parts on request. Florida’s Motor Vehicle Repair Act requires written estimates for repairs over $100 and approval before exceeding an estimate by more than $10 or 10%, up to $50. Both states prohibit holding a vehicle hostage over unauthorized charges.
Preparation matters. Keep any replaced parts, get a written diagnosis from an independent mechanic willing to testify, collect at least three repair estimates, and be ready to explain the mechanical issue in plain language. You carry the burden of proving the shop’s work fell below a reasonable standard of competence, and a shop can weaken your case by showing it offered to redo the work and you refused.
How Recalls Interact With Private Lawsuits
A recall is not a substitute for a lawsuit, and the two often reinforce each other. Litigation over tread separations in Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires led to NHTSA’s investigation and the recall of 6.5 million tires in 2000. Litigation over Jeep Cherokee transmissions that appeared to be in park but weren’t led to a recall of 1.6 million vehicles. The Takata airbag crisis, involving over 100 million recalls and at least 28 deaths globally, was driven in significant part by private litigation that exposed internal manufacturer knowledge of the defect.
Courts have repeatedly held that meeting federal safety standards does not shield a manufacturer from liability. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, involving the Pinto’s fuel tank, produced a $125 million punitive damages award (later reduced) even though the vehicle met existing federal standards. If a recall repair doesn’t fix the problem, or your vehicle was damaged before the recall issued, a private claim under warranty law, lemon law, or product liability may still be available.