How would cities have standing for this kind of lawsuit against a car manufacturer? That seems... tenuous. In any case, I'm pretty sure there are consumer suits against Kia for this, which...
How would cities have standing for this kind of lawsuit against a car manufacturer? That seems... tenuous.
In any case, I'm pretty sure there are consumer suits against Kia for this, which definitely would have standing.
This sounds really dumb. As far as I am aware there is no law forcing automakers to install any particular antitheft devices in their products. This sounds like someone suing a property’s previous...
This sounds really dumb. As far as I am aware there is no law forcing automakers to install any particular antitheft devices in their products.
This sounds like someone suing a property’s previous homeowner because the house didn’t have an alarm system installed.
This wasn’t a deal with a particular countermeasure installed, this was a tech package that made it trivially easy for people to enter and start the car based on a hack they saw on TikTok. It was...
This wasn’t a deal with a particular countermeasure installed, this was a tech package that made it trivially easy for people to enter and start the car based on a hack they saw on TikTok. It was irresponsible and badly tested. It put an enormous strain on municipal police and endangered people when criminals jacked cars to take in joyrides.
And worst of all, manufacturers completely ignored the issue for an eternity. They didn't start issuing recalls until insurance comapnies had enough and literally stopped insuring these models.
And worst of all, manufacturers completely ignored the issue for an eternity. They didn't start issuing recalls until insurance comapnies had enough and literally stopped insuring these models.
There is a difference between not installing an anti-theft device and building a car specifically so that it can be stolen. Claiming they did the latter is so wrong that I honestly do not have the...
There is a difference between not installing an anti-theft device and building a car specifically so that it can be stolen. Claiming they did the latter is so wrong that I honestly do not have the words to explain just how crazy it sounds.
My husband’s car was broken into and it did have antitheft features installed. Does that mean he should have sued Nisan because it was possible to jimmy the door open and break the lock on the glove compartment?
I would understand if this was an issue of the car not having these built in if it were advertised as having them, or if they made claims that they don’t need one or made promises about the security of the vehicle. But that isn’t what these lawsuits are about.
I don't think the lawsuit is claiming the car manufacturers intentionally designed these cars to be easy to steal. I think it is claiming that the car manufacturers knew of a significant security...
I don't think the lawsuit is claiming the car manufacturers intentionally designed these cars to be easy to steal. I think it is claiming that the car manufacturers knew of a significant security defect in these models and refused to issue a recall to fix it.
There is no excuse for how easy these cars were to steal. As soon as the vulnerability was known, recalls should have been put out for each of these models to fix the problem ASAP.
Master has been selling padlocks that can be shimmed with a cut-open aluminum can for decades and they aren't getting sued in spite of the obvious flaws with them. Why should an automaker be held...
Master has been selling padlocks that can be shimmed with a cut-open aluminum can for decades and they aren't getting sued in spite of the obvious flaws with them. Why should an automaker be held to a higher standard?
Because if someone opens a masterlock they get a leaf blower and a rake out of a shed. If someone steals a Hyundai/Kia it leads to death and destruction of property. A reasonable...
A reasonable person/engineer/company, the legal standard, knows that cars get stolen. Specifically designing them, as a cost cutting measure, in a way that results in them being easier to steal is at the very least a mistake and at the worst willfully negligent. Hyundai/Kia undoubtedly expected that any increase in thefts because of their changes to be the burden of cities/police only. The lawsuits, recall, and denial of coverage by insurance companies has proven them wrong on that front.
If an automaker cuts corners to save money that results in their products being less safe than the market expectation and a greater burden on public resources, why should they not be held accountable? Per the letter from the Wisconsin DOJ in 2020 895 Hyundai/Kias were stolen, in 2021 that number jumped to 6,970. Hyundai/Kia made a decision that increased the number of thefts, and therefore burden on the public and decrease in public safety, by nearly 800% in one year and another 836% the next year, in just one city.
Next you have insurance. Insurance is required pretty much everywhere, Hyundai/Kia have made their cars largely uninsurable, as a result the cars cannot be legally driven, but do you want to take a guess if the owners of those cars have alternatives to not driving their car... So now they drive their cars illegally, putting greater strain on public resources and greater dangers to public safety.
I don't think anyone thinks they shouldn't be accountable just that you can't just invent a non-existent standard to hold people accountable. Manufacturer norms aren't legally binding. You can't...
If an automaker cuts corners to save money that results in their products being less safe than the market expectation, why should they not be held accountable?
I don't think anyone thinks they shouldn't be accountable just that you can't just invent a non-existent standard to hold people accountable. Manufacturer norms aren't legally binding. You can't sue someone for selling a car without a glove box. You could sue them for selling one without a muffler.
I think the best way for them to be held accountable would be a) regulate/standardize minimum-levels of anti-theft required by cars sold in your country/state/city and b) consumers moving to other options.
No one is suing for violating a standard, but a lack of glove box doesn't make a car less safe. They're suing for making a vehicle that is, by design, less safe and a greater burden than the...
No one is suing for violating a standard, but a lack of glove box doesn't make a car less safe. They're suing for making a vehicle that is, by design, less safe and a greater burden than the market expectation. There isn't a standard that says a car has to have seats, but do you think the automaker shouldn't be held accountable if people sat on a home depot bucket instead of buying a seat on their own? There isn't a standard that says wheels have to have tires of rubber on them, so if GM started selling cars with giant gears as wheels that destroy pavement as they're driven, should they be held accountable? There wasn't a standard that said Samsung's batteries shouldn't explode, but that doesn't mean they weren't liable for the expectation that they do not.
The CPSA itself has an umbrella clause that states they can deem something unsafe despite it not being in their overall list of standards. The "there isn't a law/standard that says I have to do this" isn't a good defense.
But that's not a legal requirement? Are you sure about that? I'm not sure about USA, but in Canada there's a lot of regulation about vehicle features: e.g. see schedule III and schedule IV of the...
They're suing for making a vehicle that is, by design, less safe and a greater burden than the market expectation
But that's not a legal requirement?
There isn't a standard that says a car has to have seats, but do you think the automaker shouldn't be held accountable if people sat on a home depot bucket instead of buying a seat on their own? There isn't a standard that says wheels have to have tires of rubber on them, so if GM started selling cars with giant gears as wheels that destroy pavement as they're driven, should they be held accountable?
Are you sure about that? I'm not sure about USA, but in Canada there's a lot of regulation about vehicle features: e.g. see schedule III and schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations.
Again, and for the last time, there doesn't have to be a legal requirement, just a reasonable expectation. Feel free to go searching through your links, there are a lot of references to how seats...
Again, and for the last time, there doesn't have to be a legal requirement, just a reasonable expectation.
Feel free to go searching through your links, there are a lot of references to how seats are to be anchored, how items should act/be placed in relation to seats, how the seats should perform in a crash, etc. but no actual statements that I can find that says seats are mandatory. They are merely an expectation. Unlike say, sun visors:
(8) A sun visor shall be provided at each front outboard designated seating position on every vehicle and shall be constructed of, or covered with, energy absorbing material and so mounted that each mounting shall not have a rigid material edge with a radius of less than 3 mm (0.125 inch) that is statically contactable by a spherical head form with a diameter of 165 mm (6.5 inches).
In fact there are a whole lot of rules about where things have to be in relations to a seating position, but none requiring an actual seat be there.
I think trying to comply with regulations that also dictate very precisely the position of seat belts without seats would quickly wind up a fool's errand. And the regulations also worked, vehicles...
I think trying to comply with regulations that also dictate very precisely the position of seat belts without seats would quickly wind up a fool's errand. And the regulations also worked, vehicles require immobilizers here and there is no theft issue. IMO this is a failure of your regulating bodies, not of Hyundai/Kia.
Edit: Actually seating/seats is central to the Act, so it's not listed in section IV but rather in it's own page.
There wouldn't be seat belts without seats as there wouldn't be a seating position around which to base it. The point being, seats are not required. IMO if you have to be told to do something that...
There wouldn't be seat belts without seats as there wouldn't be a seating position around which to base it. The point being, seats are not required.
IMO if you have to be told to do something that is common sense then you are at fault and not the body you expect to tell you what to do. These are multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporations, they're not children, everything can't be solved by writing every possible minutia into law, it's their fault if they have to be told to make their cars difficult to steal and are punished for not doing so. Again see: seats
Not sure if you saw my edit, but there is a separate section for seats. But you can solve this problem easily with regulation. Regulation is the principal tool that democracies have to put a leash...
Not sure if you saw my edit, but there is a separate section for seats.
These are multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporations, they're not children, everything can't be solved by writing every possible minutia into law, it's their fault if they have to be told to make their cars difficult to steal and are punished for not doing so. Again see: seats
But you can solve this problem easily with regulation. Regulation is the principal tool that democracies have to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do. It's a far better system than waiting until damage has been inflicted and suing everything under the sun once the dust settles. We're not talking about 10,000 pages of detail here -- this is a set of documents that a "multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporation" should easily be able to comply with.
I did not, checked the link, it's still in regards to seating positions and what constitutes them, but not an actual requirement for seats. You can solve a lot of problems with regulations, you...
Not sure if you saw my edit, but there is a separate section for seats.
I did not, checked the link, it's still in regards to seating positions and what constitutes them, but not an actual requirement for seats.
But you can solve this problem easily with regulation. Regulation is the principal tool that democracies have to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do. It's a far better system than waiting until damage has been inflicted and suing everything under the sun once the dust settles. We're not talking about 10,000 pages of detail here -- this is a set of documents that a "multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporation" should easily be able to comply with.
You can solve a lot of problems with regulations, you can solve a lot of problems with lawsuits and case law, you can solve a lot of problems by not cutting corners. For example, your Schedule IV link doesn't say anything about paint, the only thing stopping a manufacturer from using paint that dissolves in the rain or actually causes their car to rust is not regulation, but common sense. As you've pointed out immobilizers are required in Canada, so Hyundai/Kia doesn't have this problem there. They saved a few pennies per car by not putting them in the cars in the US. Doing so, along with other decisions to cut costs, created a public safety issue. Tesla isn't required to put cameras in their cars, but they did so and are now facing lawsuits because of the privacy issue it created.. Sure, adding immobilizer regulation wouldn't take up that much room, but that argument doesn't work well when you start to realize all of the things that are done as a common sense measure and not in the regulations.
IANAL, but that seems like an extremely bad faith reading of that and this also isn't something you get to argue in court, the regulating body just won't approve your vehicle if you say "hurr...
I did not, checked the link, it's still in regards to seating positions and what constitutes them, but not an actual requirement for seats.
IANAL, but that seems like an extremely bad faith reading of that and this also isn't something you get to argue in court, the regulating body just won't approve your vehicle if you say "hurr hurr, it's a seating position not a seat" and you have no regress.
Sure, adding immobilizer regulation wouldn't take up that much room, but that argument doesn't work well when you start to realize all of the things that are done as a common sense measure and not in the regulations.
You don't have to regulate everything, just where social and corporate incentives don't or might not align. Vehicle manufacturers don't want to sell vehicles with paint that dissolves in the rain or paint that causes a vehicle to rust. Cheap paint that was also highly environmentally destructive would be something that would require regulation.
Even your link specifies that a seating position is one with a seat: So without a seating surface it isn't a seat and therefore not subject to the seating position regulations. Since a seat isn't...
IANAL, but that seems like an extremely bad faith reading of that and this also isn't something you get to argue in court, the regulating body just won't approve your vehicle if you say "hurr hurr, it's a seating position not a seat" and you have no regress.
Even your link specifies that a seating position is one with a seat:
If a location in a vehicle that is likely to be used as a seating position has a seating surface
So without a seating surface it isn't a seat and therefore not subject to the seating position regulations. Since a seat isn't a requirement and sitting all the time is detrimental to you health, there's a case for a car in which you stand to operate it; just gotta sell it to the public.
You don't have to regulate everything, just where social and corporate incentives don't or might not align. Vehicle manufacturers don't want to sell vehicles with paint that dissolves in the rain or paint that causes a vehicle to rust. Cheap paint that was also highly environmentally destructive would be something that would require regulation.
Yes, but those regulations don't exist now. Why? Because vehicle manufacturers don't want to sell a car with dissolving paint, nor do they want the regulations on what their paint would have to do should it dissolve. So why does Kia/Hyundai need regulations to sell cars that can't be easily stolen? You'd think they wouldn't want to sell a car that can be stolen in seconds and can't be insured...
The United States comes from a common law tradition, not a civil law one. Legal action and torts are actually our primary tool to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do with hard...
Regulation is the principal tool that democracies have to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do.
The United States comes from a common law tradition, not a civil law one. Legal action and torts are actually our primary tool to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do with hard regulation being secondary in order of preference. Most of our landmark environmental and consumer safety regulations actually operate by creating new categories of liability, harm, and standing under which private entities can take legal action.
For example, even OSHA regulations only partly operate through safety inspections. The real meat of how they work is in making employers liable for injuries incurred on the job. We only lean on the inspections and regulations in cases where we don't want to wait on demonstrable harm and would prefer to be proactive about stopping it (e.g. egregious safety violations, health inspectors, medical treatments).
Regarding the article you linked to, I would rather see the original report because these numbers in a vacuum mean nothing without something to compare them to. These are all disingenuous...
Regarding the article you linked to, I would rather see the original report because these numbers in a vacuum mean nothing without something to compare them to.
These are all disingenuous arguements that are not only made in bad faith but are practically impossible to prove. I don’t think they should be punished for selling cars without a feature simply because other manufacturers have it. And it’s not like this is one tiny manufacturer who is the last of its kind: there are two major manufacturers who have made millions of cars this way!
I agree that it’s bad that this is causing unsafe situations to happen, but attempting to punish them when they aren’t the ones doing the damage is really unreasonable. The right way to correct this is to legislate a requirement for them to install these anti-theft systems.
In any case, I find it really doubtful that it would make much of a difference if they did have those features; if people are going to steal a car they are going to steal a car. The only difference is they wouldn’t be targeting these models anymore.
Numbers are in the letter linked in the original article which has sources you can feel free to check. If we're going to debate disingenuous arguments we'll need to start with the "masterlock" one...
Regarding the article you linked to, I would rather see the original report because these numbers in a vacuum mean nothing without something to compare them to.
Numbers are in the letter linked in the original article which has sources you can feel free to check.
These are all disingenuous arguements that are not only made in bad faith but are practically impossible to prove. I don’t think they should be punished for selling cars without a feature simply because other manufacturers have it. And it’s not like this is one tiny manufacturer who is the last of its kind: there are two major manufacturers who have made millions of cars this way!
If we're going to debate disingenuous arguments we'll need to start with the "masterlock" one you presented.
They aren't being punished for selling cars without a feature. They're being sued to do something to resolve the fact that they penny pinched the production of millions of cars to the detriment of public safety.
I agree that it’s bad that this is causing unsafe situations to happen, but attempting to punish them when they aren’t the ones doing the damage is really unreasonable. The right way to correct this is to legislate a requirement for them to install these anti-theft systems.
Case law is faster and often just as effective.
In any case, I find it really doubtful that it would make much of a difference if they did have those features; if people are going to steal a car they are going to steal a car. The only difference is they wouldn’t be targeting these models anymore.
You're going with the argument that the same number of cars would have been stolen even if Hyundai/Kia had immobilizers? That's the same argument used by anti-gun control groups when you present them with statistics on suicides. I don't think we need to circle back to disingenuous arguments...
You literally countered my claims that these are disingenuous claims by saying that my claim is disingenuous because of the disingenuous claim. So now you're personally insulting me in addition to...
You literally countered my claims that these are disingenuous claims by saying that my claim is disingenuous because of the disingenuous claim. So now you're personally insulting me in addition to resorting to troll tactics.
Edit: I'm done. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. Think whatever you want; you're not worth engaging with anymore.
I believe the argument is not that total security is a requirement, but rather to say that, in comparison to other brands, Hyundai and Kia are presenting a subpar and unreasonably unsafe product.
I believe the argument is not that total security is a requirement, but rather to say that, in comparison to other brands, Hyundai and Kia are presenting a subpar and unreasonably unsafe product.
My problem is not that I do not understand why they are suing, my problem is that theses reasons appear to be completely unreasonable. Once again, how does this not apply to Master locks?
My problem is not that I do not understand why they are suing, my problem is that theses reasons appear to be completely unreasonable.
Once again, how does this not apply to Master locks?
I have no familiarity with master locks. I assume it's some kind of lock people use in their cars. To ascertain if a master lock is unreasonably ineffective, I would have to compare its...
I have no familiarity with master locks. I assume it's some kind of lock people use in their cars. To ascertain if a master lock is unreasonably ineffective, I would have to compare its effectiveness with similar brands in the market. If the effectiveness was proven to be significantly inferior to the market standard in a way that indicates gross incompetence, bad faith, or disregard for regulations, I might be justified in demanding an explanation from Master Lock's manufacturer.
They built and sold a car with locks that do not work. That's basically building it to be stolen. If a locksmith installed locks on your front door that could unlocked by tapping on them really...
There is a difference between not installing an anti-theft device and building a car specifically so that it can be stolen. Claiming they did the latter is so wrong that I honestly do not have the words to explain just how crazy it sounds.
They built and sold a car with locks that do not work. That's basically building it to be stolen. If a locksmith installed locks on your front door that could unlocked by tapping on them really hard and then didn't disclose this to you, you would also have grounds to sue them.
I don't think those are great examples. A lock being opened with a magnet sounds defective to me. Your two top links for vehicles lists an ignition switch that inadvertently disables all safety...
I don't think those are great examples. A lock being opened with a magnet sounds defective to me. Your two top links for vehicles lists an ignition switch that inadvertently disables all safety features of a car (including air bags) and one that appears to lock with a fob but actually doesn't. These are failures in advertised features that probably also run afoul of motor vehicle regulations.
A lot of locks can be opened through very simple non-destructive means. There are plenty of locks that can be opened with strong magnets. A lot of commercially available locks can also be opened...
A lock being opened with a magnet sounds defective to me.
A lot of locks can be opened through very simple non-destructive means. There are plenty of locks that can be opened with strong magnets. A lot of commercially available locks can also be opened just by whacking them with something, and even more locks can be bypassed, with simple tools and low skill attacks (raking, combing). These aren't manufacturing defects, they're design flaws.
I'd bet that the majority of commercially available padlocks (especially mass market brands like Masterlock) can be opened by pretty much anybody with the right tools. I bought a simple lockpick set years ago and was able to rake open a mass market masterlock within probably an hour of starting, and I was able to single pin pick it after a couple of days of light practice.
I did not mean they literally don't get sued for it, I meant that it was rare. As someone else already pointed out, it's trivial to unlock a wide range of commercially available locks.
I did not mean they literally don't get sued for it, I meant that it was rare. As someone else already pointed out, it's trivial to unlock a wide range of commercially available locks.
I have no clue on the legal merit of the lawsuit. However, I don't believe the comparison is sound. Automakers are not the equivalent to the previous owner of a house -- they are the sole...
I have no clue on the legal merit of the lawsuit. However, I don't believe the comparison is sound. Automakers are not the equivalent to the previous owner of a house -- they are the sole designers, manufacturers, and sellers of the vehicle. As such, they're ultimately liable for its proper functioning and maintainance requirements. Those are different positions.
Furthermore, the legal and social parameters for the behavior of individuals and the behavior of corporations are not the same. As it should be.
So while I was looking at vehicle regulations here in Canada, I noticed this in our Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations: And accordingly, Kia and Hyundai vehicles in Canada not affected by U.S. theft...
(4) With the exception of a walk-in van and an emergency vehicle, every passenger car, every three-wheeled vehicle, and every multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less shall be equipped with an immobilization system that conforms to
(a) one of the following sets of requirements as modified by subsection (22), (23) or (24):
(i) the requirements of section 3, subsection 4.3, sections 6 to 10 and subsections 12.1, 12.2 and 12.16 of National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada,
(ii) the general and particular specifications that are set out in Part III of United Nations Regulation No. 97, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS), in the version in effect on August 8, 2007, or
(iii) the general and particular specifications that are set out in Part IV of United Nations Regulation No. 116, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use, in the version in effect on February 10, 2009; or
(b) the requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21).
(5) A vehicle equipped with an immobilization system shall be accompanied by the following written information:
(a) instructions for operating and maintaining the system; and
(b) a warning not to leave a disarming device or a combination that disarms the system in the vehicle.
(6) The information shall be provided in English, French or both official languages, as requested by the first retail purchaser of the vehicle.
(7) In this section, disarming device means a physical device that contains or transmits the code that disarms the immobilization system of a vehicle.
How would cities have standing for this kind of lawsuit against a car manufacturer? That seems... tenuous.
In any case, I'm pretty sure there are consumer suits against Kia for this, which definitely would have standing.
I was expecting this to be about a municipal fleet of Hyundai and Kia cars. But nope.
Archived.
This sounds really dumb. As far as I am aware there is no law forcing automakers to install any particular antitheft devices in their products.
This sounds like someone suing a property’s previous homeowner because the house didn’t have an alarm system installed.
This wasn’t a deal with a particular countermeasure installed, this was a tech package that made it trivially easy for people to enter and start the car based on a hack they saw on TikTok. It was irresponsible and badly tested. It put an enormous strain on municipal police and endangered people when criminals jacked cars to take in joyrides.
And worst of all, manufacturers completely ignored the issue for an eternity. They didn't start issuing recalls until insurance comapnies had enough and literally stopped insuring these models.
There is a difference between not installing an anti-theft device and building a car specifically so that it can be stolen. Claiming they did the latter is so wrong that I honestly do not have the words to explain just how crazy it sounds.
My husband’s car was broken into and it did have antitheft features installed. Does that mean he should have sued Nisan because it was possible to jimmy the door open and break the lock on the glove compartment?
I would understand if this was an issue of the car not having these built in if it were advertised as having them, or if they made claims that they don’t need one or made promises about the security of the vehicle. But that isn’t what these lawsuits are about.
I don't think the lawsuit is claiming the car manufacturers intentionally designed these cars to be easy to steal. I think it is claiming that the car manufacturers knew of a significant security defect in these models and refused to issue a recall to fix it.
There is no excuse for how easy these cars were to steal. As soon as the vulnerability was known, recalls should have been put out for each of these models to fix the problem ASAP.
Master has been selling padlocks that can be shimmed with a cut-open aluminum can for decades and they aren't getting sued in spite of the obvious flaws with them. Why should an automaker be held to a higher standard?
Because if someone opens a masterlock they get a leaf blower and a rake out of a shed. If someone steals a Hyundai/Kia it leads to death and destruction of property.
A reasonable person/engineer/company, the legal standard, knows that cars get stolen. Specifically designing them, as a cost cutting measure, in a way that results in them being easier to steal is at the very least a mistake and at the worst willfully negligent. Hyundai/Kia undoubtedly expected that any increase in thefts because of their changes to be the burden of cities/police only. The lawsuits, recall, and denial of coverage by insurance companies has proven them wrong on that front.
If an automaker cuts corners to save money that results in their products being less safe than the market expectation and a greater burden on public resources, why should they not be held accountable? Per the letter from the Wisconsin DOJ in 2020 895 Hyundai/Kias were stolen, in 2021 that number jumped to 6,970. Hyundai/Kia made a decision that increased the number of thefts, and therefore burden on the public and decrease in public safety, by nearly 800% in one year and another 836% the next year, in just one city.
Next you have insurance. Insurance is required pretty much everywhere, Hyundai/Kia have made their cars largely uninsurable, as a result the cars cannot be legally driven, but do you want to take a guess if the owners of those cars have alternatives to not driving their car... So now they drive their cars illegally, putting greater strain on public resources and greater dangers to public safety.
Edits to add statistics.
I don't think anyone thinks they shouldn't be accountable just that you can't just invent a non-existent standard to hold people accountable. Manufacturer norms aren't legally binding. You can't sue someone for selling a car without a glove box. You could sue them for selling one without a muffler.
I think the best way for them to be held accountable would be a) regulate/standardize minimum-levels of anti-theft required by cars sold in your country/state/city and b) consumers moving to other options.
No one is suing for violating a standard, but a lack of glove box doesn't make a car less safe. They're suing for making a vehicle that is, by design, less safe and a greater burden than the market expectation. There isn't a standard that says a car has to have seats, but do you think the automaker shouldn't be held accountable if people sat on a home depot bucket instead of buying a seat on their own? There isn't a standard that says wheels have to have tires of rubber on them, so if GM started selling cars with giant gears as wheels that destroy pavement as they're driven, should they be held accountable? There wasn't a standard that said Samsung's batteries shouldn't explode, but that doesn't mean they weren't liable for the expectation that they do not.
The CPSA itself has an umbrella clause that states they can deem something unsafe despite it not being in their overall list of standards. The "there isn't a law/standard that says I have to do this" isn't a good defense.
But that's not a legal requirement?
Are you sure about that? I'm not sure about USA, but in Canada there's a lot of regulation about vehicle features: e.g. see schedule III and schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations.
Again, and for the last time, there doesn't have to be a legal requirement, just a reasonable expectation.
Feel free to go searching through your links, there are a lot of references to how seats are to be anchored, how items should act/be placed in relation to seats, how the seats should perform in a crash, etc. but no actual statements that I can find that says seats are mandatory. They are merely an expectation. Unlike say, sun visors:
In fact there are a whole lot of rules about where things have to be in relations to a seating position, but none requiring an actual seat be there.
I think trying to comply with regulations that also dictate very precisely the position of seat belts without seats would quickly wind up a fool's errand. And the regulations also worked, vehicles require immobilizers here and there is no theft issue. IMO this is a failure of your regulating bodies, not of Hyundai/Kia.
Edit: Actually seating/seats is central to the Act, so it's not listed in section IV but rather in it's own page.
There wouldn't be seat belts without seats as there wouldn't be a seating position around which to base it. The point being, seats are not required.
IMO if you have to be told to do something that is common sense then you are at fault and not the body you expect to tell you what to do. These are multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporations, they're not children, everything can't be solved by writing every possible minutia into law, it's their fault if they have to be told to make their cars difficult to steal and are punished for not doing so. Again see: seats
Not sure if you saw my edit, but there is a separate section for seats.
But you can solve this problem easily with regulation. Regulation is the principal tool that democracies have to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do. It's a far better system than waiting until damage has been inflicted and suing everything under the sun once the dust settles. We're not talking about 10,000 pages of detail here -- this is a set of documents that a "multi-billion dollar multinational megacorporation" should easily be able to comply with.
I did not, checked the link, it's still in regards to seating positions and what constitutes them, but not an actual requirement for seats.
You can solve a lot of problems with regulations, you can solve a lot of problems with lawsuits and case law, you can solve a lot of problems by not cutting corners. For example, your Schedule IV link doesn't say anything about paint, the only thing stopping a manufacturer from using paint that dissolves in the rain or actually causes their car to rust is not regulation, but common sense. As you've pointed out immobilizers are required in Canada, so Hyundai/Kia doesn't have this problem there. They saved a few pennies per car by not putting them in the cars in the US. Doing so, along with other decisions to cut costs, created a public safety issue. Tesla isn't required to put cameras in their cars, but they did so and are now facing lawsuits because of the privacy issue it created.. Sure, adding immobilizer regulation wouldn't take up that much room, but that argument doesn't work well when you start to realize all of the things that are done as a common sense measure and not in the regulations.
IANAL, but that seems like an extremely bad faith reading of that and this also isn't something you get to argue in court, the regulating body just won't approve your vehicle if you say "hurr hurr, it's a seating position not a seat" and you have no regress.
You don't have to regulate everything, just where social and corporate incentives don't or might not align. Vehicle manufacturers don't want to sell vehicles with paint that dissolves in the rain or paint that causes a vehicle to rust. Cheap paint that was also highly environmentally destructive would be something that would require regulation.
Even your link specifies that a seating position is one with a seat:
So without a seating surface it isn't a seat and therefore not subject to the seating position regulations. Since a seat isn't a requirement and sitting all the time is detrimental to you health, there's a case for a car in which you stand to operate it; just gotta sell it to the public.
Yes, but those regulations don't exist now. Why? Because vehicle manufacturers don't want to sell a car with dissolving paint, nor do they want the regulations on what their paint would have to do should it dissolve. So why does Kia/Hyundai need regulations to sell cars that can't be easily stolen? You'd think they wouldn't want to sell a car that can be stolen in seconds and can't be insured...
The United States comes from a common law tradition, not a civil law one. Legal action and torts are actually our primary tool to put a leash on what corporations can and cannot do with hard regulation being secondary in order of preference. Most of our landmark environmental and consumer safety regulations actually operate by creating new categories of liability, harm, and standing under which private entities can take legal action.
For example, even OSHA regulations only partly operate through safety inspections. The real meat of how they work is in making employers liable for injuries incurred on the job. We only lean on the inspections and regulations in cases where we don't want to wait on demonstrable harm and would prefer to be proactive about stopping it (e.g. egregious safety violations, health inspectors, medical treatments).
Regarding the article you linked to, I would rather see the original report because these numbers in a vacuum mean nothing without something to compare them to.
These are all disingenuous arguements that are not only made in bad faith but are practically impossible to prove. I don’t think they should be punished for selling cars without a feature simply because other manufacturers have it. And it’s not like this is one tiny manufacturer who is the last of its kind: there are two major manufacturers who have made millions of cars this way!
I agree that it’s bad that this is causing unsafe situations to happen, but attempting to punish them when they aren’t the ones doing the damage is really unreasonable. The right way to correct this is to legislate a requirement for them to install these anti-theft systems.
In any case, I find it really doubtful that it would make much of a difference if they did have those features; if people are going to steal a car they are going to steal a car. The only difference is they wouldn’t be targeting these models anymore.
Numbers are in the letter linked in the original article which has sources you can feel free to check.
If we're going to debate disingenuous arguments we'll need to start with the "masterlock" one you presented.
They aren't being punished for selling cars without a feature. They're being sued to do something to resolve the fact that they penny pinched the production of millions of cars to the detriment of public safety.
Case law is faster and often just as effective.
You're going with the argument that the same number of cars would have been stolen even if Hyundai/Kia had immobilizers? That's the same argument used by anti-gun control groups when you present them with statistics on suicides. I don't think we need to circle back to disingenuous arguments...
You literally countered my claims that these are disingenuous claims by saying that my claim is disingenuous because of the disingenuous claim. So now you're personally insulting me in addition to resorting to troll tactics.
Edit: I'm done. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. Think whatever you want; you're not worth engaging with anymore.
I believe the argument is not that total security is a requirement, but rather to say that, in comparison to other brands, Hyundai and Kia are presenting a subpar and unreasonably unsafe product.
My problem is not that I do not understand why they are suing, my problem is that theses reasons appear to be completely unreasonable.
Once again, how does this not apply to Master locks?
I have no familiarity with master locks. I assume it's some kind of lock people use in their cars. To ascertain if a master lock is unreasonably ineffective, I would have to compare its effectiveness with similar brands in the market. If the effectiveness was proven to be significantly inferior to the market standard in a way that indicates gross incompetence, bad faith, or disregard for regulations, I might be justified in demanding an explanation from Master Lock's manufacturer.
They built and sold a car with locks that do not work. That's basically building it to be stolen. If a locksmith installed locks on your front door that could unlocked by tapping on them really hard and then didn't disclose this to you, you would also have grounds to sue them.
Isn't the issue these vehicles lack an immobilizer? Car locks are notoriously easy to get into with an inflatable bladder and a slim jim.
Most home locks can indeed be unlocked with a bump. The people who make them don’t get sued for it.
Oh yes lockmakers do.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/kaba-faces-class-action-lawsuits-alleging-locks-are-defective/
And carmakers too.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31965015/gm-settles-lawsuit-ignition-switch-car-values/
https://www.classlawgroup.com/toyota-door-lock-actuator-class-action-lawsuit/
https://www.classaction.org/blog/safety-risk-lawsuit-claims-dodge-grand-caravan-chrysler-town-and-country-door-latch-is-defective
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/honda-cr-v-defective-door-lock-class-action-settlement/
I don't think those are great examples. A lock being opened with a magnet sounds defective to me. Your two top links for vehicles lists an ignition switch that inadvertently disables all safety features of a car (including air bags) and one that appears to lock with a fob but actually doesn't. These are failures in advertised features that probably also run afoul of motor vehicle regulations.
A lot of locks can be opened through very simple non-destructive means. There are plenty of locks that can be opened with strong magnets. A lot of commercially available locks can also be opened just by whacking them with something, and even more locks can be bypassed, with simple tools and low skill attacks (raking, combing). These aren't manufacturing defects, they're design flaws.
I'd bet that the majority of commercially available padlocks (especially mass market brands like Masterlock) can be opened by pretty much anybody with the right tools. I bought a simple lockpick set years ago and was able to rake open a mass market masterlock within probably an hour of starting, and I was able to single pin pick it after a couple of days of light practice.
That is basically what these Hyundais are doing. There is an expected standard people have for car locks and they fell far short.
I did not mean they literally don't get sued for it, I meant that it was rare. As someone else already pointed out, it's trivial to unlock a wide range of commercially available locks.
I have no clue on the legal merit of the lawsuit. However, I don't believe the comparison is sound. Automakers are not the equivalent to the previous owner of a house -- they are the sole designers, manufacturers, and sellers of the vehicle. As such, they're ultimately liable for its proper functioning and maintainance requirements. Those are different positions.
Furthermore, the legal and social parameters for the behavior of individuals and the behavior of corporations are not the same. As it should be.
So while I was looking at vehicle regulations here in Canada, I noticed this in our Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations:
And accordingly, Kia and Hyundai vehicles in Canada not affected by U.S. theft issue, automakers say.