Suits & Settlements-The Car Pro Legal Roundup

In this week’s Suits & Settlements, you’ll find the following reports:

• GM OnStar Privacy Lawsuit Moves Forward on Wiretap Claims
• Bugatti Dealer vs. Bugatti Lawsuit Expands: Fraud And Retaliation Claims
• Massive Jury Verdict in Jeep Defect Case Raises Stakes for Automakers
• Judge Keeps Hyundai, Kia Theft Lawsuit Alive in U.S. Court

GM OnStar Privacy Lawsuit Moves Forward on Wiretap Claims. General Motors must face key portions of a proposed class action alleging its OnStar system improperly collected and shared drivers’ data, after a federal judge in Georgia allowed core wiretap claims to move forward while trimming other allegations, according to Law360. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of an estimated 16 million drivers, claims GM and its OnStar unit intercepted and disclosed driving data — including location and vehicle usage — without proper consent, potentially violating federal and state wiretapping laws. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash ruled Wednesday that plaintiffs plausibly alleged unlawful interception of electronic communications, allowing those claims to proceed, while dismissing certain ancillary counts that failed to meet legal thresholds. The case is part of a growing wave of litigation targeting automakers and tech providers over how connected vehicle data is collected, used, and monetized, particularly as vehicles become increasingly software-driven. Plaintiffs allege the data was shared with third parties, raising broader privacy concerns that echo similar scrutiny faced by other automakers and insurers exploring telematics-based services. GM has not admitted wrongdoing and is expected to continue fighting the claims as the case moves forward. The ruling keeps alive one of the more significant legal challenges yet to the automotive industry’s handling of driver data, an issue that regulators and lawmakers have begun examining more closely as consumers demand greater transparency and control over how their information is used.

Bugatti Dealer vs. Bugatti Lawsuit Expands: Fraud And Retaliation Claims. A Miami Bugatti dealership has expanded its lawsuit against Bugatti of the Americas, alleging retaliation, fraud and multiple violations of franchise law after the automaker stripped it of warranty repair authorization, according to Automotive News. The complaint says Bugatti initially approved a jump in parts reimbursement to roughly 160 percent in 2024 and negotiated a phased labor rate increase that would reach $1,350 per hour in 2026, but then “fraudulently and in bad faith” induced the dealer to accept a temporary reduced rate before reversing course and terminating its warranty work effective May 13, citing excessive markup. The suit further alleges Bugatti planned to notify customers in the Miami market that warranty service would no longer be available at the store, a move the dealer says would damage its business. Beyond reimbursement disputes, the complaint claims discriminatory allocation practices, alleging Bugatti Miami received just two allocation slots for the new Tourbillon hypercar while Bugatti Broward received nine, despite requests for additional units; new Bugatti models typically retail between $4 million and $5 million. The dealership also accuses Bugatti of engaging in illegal direct-to-consumer sales by taking reservations, setting pricing and contracting directly with buyers for models such as the Chiron and Tourbillon, actions it claims violate Florida law. Additional allegations include delayed reimbursement for warranty and post-delivery inspection work. The suit, filed March 6 in Miami-Dade County and later moved to federal court in the Southern District of Florida, seeks an injunction to prevent changes to the dealer agreement while litigation proceeds. Representatives for the dealership, Bugatti and their attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.

Massive Jury Verdict in Jeep Defect Case Raises Stakes for Automakers. A unit of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has been ordered to pay $184 million after a jury sided with a Jeep owner who lost a leg in a “park-to-reverse” incident, underscoring the legal risks tied to transmission-related defects, according to MotorBiscuit. The case involved a vehicle that allegedly appeared to be in park but was actually not fully engaged, allowing it to roll and cause catastrophic injury after the driver exited. Plaintiffs argued the automaker knew or should have known about the defect and failed to adequately warn consumers or correct the issue, while the defense contested both the presence of a defect and liability. The jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff, delivering one of the larger recent product liability verdicts involving a legacy Detroit automaker. While the full $184 million award reflects the severity of the injuries and the jury’s findings, legal experts note such verdicts are often subject to post-trial motions and appeals that can significantly reduce the final payout. Cases involving unintended vehicle movement have been litigated for years across the industry, often centering on gear selector design, driver feedback and whether a vehicle is clearly secured before the driver exits. This ruling adds to that body of litigation and serves as another reminder that even rare mechanical or design failures can carry enormous financial consequences when they result in severe injury. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has not admitted wrongdoing and is expected to challenge the verdict as the case proceeds through the appeals process.

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Hyundai, Kia Theft Lawsuit Settlement:   The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a California District Court Judge's decision approving a final settlement in the Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Corp. lawsuit in which plaintiffs accused the automakers of selling millions of vehicles without engine immobilizers, a design choice plaintiffs say made them easy targets for theft.  In a January ruling reported by Hagens Berman Law, the appeals court ruled against two appeals that had delayed the settlement. You can read reaction from Hyundai's legal team Quinn Emanuel here. The litigation stems from a surge in thefts beginning around 2021, fueled in part by viral social media videos demonstrating how certain Hyundai and Kia models could be started without a key. Plaintiffs allege negligence and other violations tied to the companies’ decision not to include immobilizers—technology that was already standard across much of the industry—on millions of U.S. vehicles. The automakers have maintained their vehicles complied with federal safety standards and have rolled out software updates, hardware fixes and settlements aimed at curbing thefts, while continuing to contest liability in court. The case is part of broader multi-district litigation and parallel actions nationwide, and legal experts say the outcome could influence how courts evaluate automaker responsibility for design decisions that, while technically compliant at the time, may expose consumers to foreseeable risks.