Suits & Settlements: The Car Pro Legal Roundup

Editor's note: Suits & Settlements is a weekly column in which Car Pro Show host Jerry Reynolds takes a look at the latest automotive-related legal headlines.

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

• Turo Sued After Rental Car Stolen Vehicle Flag Leads to Police Detention
• Jeep Owners Sue Windshield Supplier Over Allegedly Crack Prone Glass
• Appeals Court Breaks Up Tesla Full Self Driving False Advertising Classes

Turo Sued After Rental Car Stolen Vehicle Flag Leads to Police Detention

A Minnesota mother has sued Turo and the people or company associated with a vehicle she rented through the car sharing platform, alleging that an old stolen vehicle report led police to detain her in front of her child during a trip to New Jersey. Christina Chapman of Minneapolis filed the lawsuit October 16 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of herself and her minor child. The defendants are Turo Inc., VMOVEX LLC and Viacheslav Merkulov. According to the complaint as reported by Law360, the vehicle had previously been reported stolen, recovered by its owners and placed back on Turo without the stolen vehicle flag being cleared. Police later stopped and detained Chapman while she was driving it. Those assertions are allegations, and the defendants had not filed responses when the public docket was last checked. No court has found that Turo or the other defendants caused the detention or violated the law. The case matters because peer to peer rentals divide responsibility among the platform, the vehicle owner and law enforcement records. Renters should keep the reservation, host messages and proof that they are authorized to possess the vehicle. Platforms and fleet operators need a documented process that prevents a recovered vehicle from being rented again until its legal status has actually been cleared.

Jeep Owners Sue Windshield Supplier Over Allegedly Crack Prone Glass

Eleven Jeep owners have filed a proposed class action against Fuyao Glass America, alleging that windshields supplied for Jeep Wranglers and Gladiators can crack, fracture or chip without a meaningful impact. The lawsuit, Reinkraut and others versus Fuyao Glass America, was filed October 16 in New Jersey federal court. The complaint names Fuyao as the sole defendant and characterizes the dispute as a motor vehicle product liability case. The owners contend that the glass creates a safety hazard and has forced drivers to pay for repairs or replacement windshields. The case is at its earliest stage. The complaint contains allegations only, no class has been certified, and Fuyao has not been found liable. For Jeep owners, the practical lesson is to preserve photos of a crack before repair, the windshield markings, invoices, insurance records and any dealer diagnosis. Dealers and glass installers may also face more questions about whether a failure is impact damage, a warranty issue or an alleged product defect, particularly when replacement also requires recalibration of cameras or other driver assistance equipment.

Appeals Court Breaks Up Tesla Full Self Driving False Advertising Classes

Tesla has won a significant procedural victory in litigation accusing it of overstating the hardware capabilities of vehicles sold with its Full Self Driving package, but the appeals court did not decide whether the disputed statements were true or false. On October 16, a three judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated certification of two damages classes and one class seeking injunctive relief in LoSavio versus Tesla. The panel said the trial judge should not have presumed that every class member saw the same statement on Tesla's Autopilot webpage before buying. Because customers were not required to visit that page to complete a purchase, individual questions about exposure to the statement would overwhelm the common issues needed for class treatment. The court sent the case back for further proceedings, and the underlying false advertising allegations remain unresolved. Tesla has denied the claims. The ruling matters to buyers because former class members may no longer be able to pursue relief together unless the plaintiffs develop a narrower or better supported class theory. It also warns automakers and dealers that online claims, showroom statements and purchase materials should be consistent; when they vary, both consumers and courts may have to determine what each buyer actually saw.

Photo: ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.