Suits & Settlements: The Car Pro Legal Roundup

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

• HYUNDAI SUED OVER DRIVER-MONITORING CAMERA SYSTEM
• FORD AND LEMON LAW FIRM BATTLE OVER ALLEGEDLY INFLATED LEGAL BILLS
• GM SUED OVER ALLEGED CVT “SHUDDERING” AND STALLING DEFECT
• F-150 OWNERS DENIED CLASS ACTION STATUS IN 10-SPEED TRANSMISSION SUIT

HYUNDAI SUED OVER DRIVER-MONITORING CAMERA SYSTEM

Hyundai is facing proposed class-action claims alleging that an in-cabin camera system designed to detect distracted or drowsy driving can instead misread drivers and create potentially dangerous distractions of its own, according to Law360 and federal court records. The plaintiffs allege Hyundai's Forward Attention Warning system, which monitors a driver's face and eye position, can incorrectly determine that an attentive driver is distracted. According to the lawsuit, those alleged false readings can trigger audible warnings and other vehicle responses, including interruption of cruise-control operation and, under certain circumstances, bringing the vehicle to a stop. The plaintiffs contend the repeated warnings can themselves distract drivers and allege Hyundai failed to adequately disclose the claimed problem to buyers. Hyundai's own materials acknowledge that the camera-based system has operating limitations and may not work properly or may operate unexpectedly under various circumstances, including when drivers wear certain glasses, have hair or hats obscuring their faces, encounter bright sunlight or position themselves where the camera has difficulty detecting their faces. Hyundai describes Forward Attention Warning as a driver-assistance feature and cautions that it does not detect driver inattention in every situation. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and other relief on behalf of proposed classes of affected owners. Hyundai disputes the claims and has sought dismissal of the litigation. No class has been certified, and no court has determined that Hyundai's driver-monitoring system is defective or unsafe.

FORD AND LEMON LAW FIRM BATTLE OVER ALLEGEDLY INFLATED LEGAL BILLS

Ford Motor Co. is fighting an attempt by California law firm Quill & Arrow LLP to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the firm of systematically inflating legal fees in thousands of lemon law cases. Ford alleges Quill & Arrow attributed work performed by overseas virtual assistants and other nonlawyers to licensed California attorneys, then sought reimbursement at attorney billing rates. According to Ford's complaint, some overseas workers were paid as little as $13 per hour while work allegedly attributed to attorneys was billed at rates ranging from $350 to $950 per hour. Ford says it has paid Quill & Arrow more than $50 million in attorney fees since 2021 and alleges at least $25 million was obtained through fraudulent billing practices. The automaker also accuses the firm of manipulating California's lemon law process to prolong cases and increase potential attorney fees and penalties. Quill & Arrow denies Ford's allegations and has asked the court to dismiss the case, characterizing Ford's lawsuit as retaliatory and an attempt to discourage lawyers from representing consumers in lemon law disputes. Ford responded this week that the firm's alleged billing practices are not protected litigation activity and that its claims should be allowed to proceed. The case remains pending, and the court has not determined that Quill & Arrow committed fraud or improperly billed Ford.

GM SUED OVER ALLEGED CVT “SHUDDERING” AND STALLING DEFECT

General Motors is facing a new proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that continuously variable transmissions used in certain 2019 through 2025 vehicles contain a defective forward clutch that can cause shuddering, hesitation and stalling. A California ownerfiled the lawsuit in Delaware federal court, alleging the clutch can prematurely wear and fail, resulting in abnormal vibration and potentially a loss of propulsion. According to the complaint, the alleged problem can occur while accelerating from a stop or traveling at lower speeds, and plaintiffs contend it presents a safety risk when drivers attempt to enter intersections or merge into traffic. The lawsuit alleges GM knew or should have known about the claimed defect through warranty claims, dealer repair records, customer complaints and other information but continued selling affected vehicles without adequately informing buyers. The plaintiff also alleges that repairs do not necessarily provide a permanent solution because replacement components can suffer from the same claimed defect. The suit seeks to represent owners and lessees of affected GM vehicles equipped with the continuously variable transmission and seeks damages and other relief under warranty and consumer-protection laws. The case is in its earliest stages: GM has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and the allegations that these transmissions share a common forward-clutch defect have not been proven in court.

F-150 OWNERS DENIED CLASS ACTION STATUS IN 10-SPEED TRANSMISSION SUIT

A federal judge in Illinois has denied class-action status to Ford F-150 owners who allege the trucks' 10-speed automatic transmissions are defective, but the ruling does not mean the court found the transmissions problem-free. The long-running lawsuit involves 2017 through 2020 F-150 pickups equipped with Ford's 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission. Owners have reported symptoms including harsh or delayed shifts, jerking, surging, gear slipping and, in some cases, loss of power. The plaintiffs sought to certify classes of owners in Illinois, California, Massachusetts and New York, arguing that the transmissions share a common defect. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings denied that request, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish the commonality required for a class action. The court found evidence suggesting that harsh shifting can have multiple causes rather than the single common defect advanced by the plaintiffs. The judge also found that warranty claims of certain owners were barred by a class-action waiver contained in Ford's warranty materials. Importantly, Cummings emphasized that his ruling should not be interpreted as a declaration that the 10R80 transmission is free from harsh-shifting problems. Instead, he ruled that the owners had not demonstrated that their claims could appropriately be resolved on a classwide basis. The decision also does not resolve the merits of the individual plaintiffs' claims against Ford. The case has been pending since 2019, and the court has ordered the parties to meet and determine what happens next.

 Photo: ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.