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:
GM FACES CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT OVER ALLEGED BRAKE FAILURES IN 2025 VEHICLES
General Motors is facing a new proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that defective brake master cylinder assemblies in certain 2025 Chevrolet, GMC and Buick vehicles can fail unexpectedly, creating potentially dangerous situations for drivers and passengers. The lawsuit, filed Oct. 6 in federal court in Pennsylvania, involves the 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. According to the complaint, the master cylinder assemblies can malfunction without adequate warning, potentially compromising a driver's ability to slow or stop the vehicle. The plaintiffs allege that affected vehicles may display brake-system warning messages, including instructions to service the brakes, and that drivers can experience unusual brake-pedal behavior or reduced braking performance. The master cylinder is a critical part of a vehicle's hydraulic braking system because it converts pressure from the brake pedal into hydraulic pressure used to apply the brakes. A failure affecting that process can have serious safety implications, particularly during emergency stops or in heavy traffic. The owners contend GM knew or should have known about the alleged defect through customer complaints, warranty information, dealership service records and other sources available to the manufacturer. They further allege that GM failed to adequately disclose the potential problem to prospective buyers and that repairs involving replacement components may not necessarily provide a permanent solution. The lawsuit seeks to represent other owners and lessees of affected vehicles and includes claims under warranty and consumer-protection laws. The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages and other relief, although the court has not determined whether the vehicles share a common defect. GM has not been found liable, and no class has been certified. The case is in its earliest stages, meaning the allegations remain unproven. For owners of the vehicles identified in the complaint, the lawsuit is worth watching, but it should not be interpreted as a finding that every vehicle covered by the proposed class has a defective braking system.
BMW WINS DISMISSAL OF X5 TRANSMISSION LAWSUIT, BUT OWNERS MAY GET ANOTHER CHANCE
BMW has won a preliminary legal victory in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that a defective transmission component causes certain BMW X5 vehicles to jerk, shudder and hesitate while driving. A federal judge in New Jersey dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient factual allegations to establish that BMW knew about the alleged defect when the vehicles were sold. The owners contend that a transmission-related component can deteriorate prematurely, resulting in abnormal vibration, hesitation and rough operation, potentially requiring expensive repairs. They further allege that BMW refused to cover certain repairs despite what the plaintiffs describe as a defect that should have been addressed by the manufacturer. The owners attempted to support their claims by pointing to information they believe demonstrates BMW's awareness of the problem, including consumer complaints and service-related information. However, the judge determined that the allegations did not adequately establish when BMW supposedly learned of the defect or demonstrate that the company possessed the necessary knowledge before the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles. That distinction is important because claims involving fraudulent concealment or deceptive business practices generally require more than simply showing that a mechanical problem may exist. Plaintiffs must also establish facts supporting the contention that the manufacturer knew about the problem and failed to disclose it when disclosure was legally required. The court's ruling does not establish that the transmissions are free from defects, nor does it mean the owners' reported symptoms were imaginary or insignificant. Instead, the decision concerns whether the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to proceed under the legal theories asserted. The dismissal leaves open the possibility of additional proceedings if the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint and provide more detailed allegations. No class has been certified, and BMW has not been found liable for any transmission defect. For now, the ruling represents a procedural victory for the automaker rather than a final determination that the transmission components operate as intended.
TEXAS AUTO DEALERSHIPS AGREE TO $430,000 SEX DISCRIMINATION SETTLEMENT
Two San Antonio, Texas, automobile dealerships and their parent company have agreed to pay $430,000 to settle a federal employment-discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case involves Ingram Park Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram, Ingram Park Nissan and parent company Benson Enterprises Inc. The EEOC alleged that two female employees, Rebecca Owen and Tammie Faulkner-Taylor, were subjected to unequal treatment, harassment and retaliation in violation of federal employment laws. According to the government's allegations, the women faced discriminatory working conditions and were excluded from certain opportunities available to other employees, including opportunities affecting their compensation. Owen also alleged that she was terminated after complaining about the treatment she experienced. The EEOC brought the lawsuit in federal court in September 2024, seeking relief for the two women and changes to the dealerships' employment practices. Under the proposed settlement, Owen would receive $410,000, including back pay, compensation for emotional distress, and attorney fees and costs. Faulkner-Taylor would receive $20,000 in compensation for emotional distress. The agreement also requires the dealerships to adopt and enforce written policies prohibiting sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Additional provisions require procedures for employees to report concerns, prompt investigations of complaints, documentation of corrective actions and annual training designed to ensure employees and supervisors understand their responsibilities under federal law. The dealerships would also be required to establish procedures for management to report allegations of discriminatory conduct to human resources. The defendants have denied the allegations and agreed to settle the case rather than continue litigating the claims. The proposed consent decree remains subject to approval by the federal court. If approved, it would resolve the EEOC's lawsuit without a trial or judicial finding that the dealerships violated federal employment laws. The settlement serves as a reminder that employment practices inside dealerships are subject to the same federal discrimination and retaliation laws that apply to other businesses, and that allegations involving employee treatment can result in substantial legal expenses and financial settlements.
KIA POWER WINDOW SETTLEMENT OFFERS REIMBURSEMENT TO ELIGIBLE OWNERS
Owners and former owners of certain Kia Optima sedans and Sportage SUVs have until November 23, 2026, to file claims under a proposed class-action settlement involving allegedly defective power-window regulators. The settlement stems from a lawsuit accusing Kia of selling vehicles equipped with window-regulator assemblies containing plastic components that could break or separate prematurely, preventing the windows from operating properly. The affected vehicles include certain 2016 and 2017 Kia Optima sedans and 2017 Kia Sportage SUVs. According to the plaintiffs, failures involving the regulator's internal drums and gears could leave windows stuck in one position or cause them to drop into the door, requiring replacement of the regulator assembly. The owners alleged that Kia knew or should have known about the condition but failed to provide adequate warranty coverage or repairs. Kia denies the allegations and maintains that it did nothing wrong, but has agreed to resolve the litigation through a settlement that remains subject to final court approval. Under the agreement, eligible owners and lessees who paid out of pocket for qualifying window-regulator repairs may receive partial or full reimbursement, depending on the vehicle's mileage when the repair was performed. Reimbursement can reach $400 per qualifying repair for vehicles with lower mileage, with reduced percentages and maximum payments applying as mileage increases. The settlement also provides an alternative benefit consisting of a $40 Kia dealer service card for qualifying current owners. Eligibility is determined by the vehicle identification number and other settlement requirements, so not every Optima from the covered model years necessarily qualifies. Consumers seeking reimbursement must provide documentation supporting their claims, including information about the vehicle and qualifying repair expenses. Claims must be submitted electronically or postmarked by November 23. Owners who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement or object to its terms face an earlier deadline of October 23. A final approval hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2027, in federal court in California. Payments will not be distributed unless the settlement receives final approval and any appeals are resolved. Consumers can review eligibility requirements, obtain claim forms and find additional information at KiaWindowRegulatorSettlement.com. The agreement resolves the disputed allegations without establishing that Kia knowingly sold defective vehicles or violated consumer-protection laws.
Photo: ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.