Fiat Urges Supreme Court to Reject Jeep Hacking Class Certification

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The defendants in a Fiat Chrysler class action lawsuit over claims that Jeep Cherokees are vulnerable to being hacked now argue that thousands of Jeep drivers should not have been certified as a Class.

The latest decision in the Fiat class action lawsuit over in-vehicle hacking access came in front of the U.S. Supreme Court due to a split circuit court decision.

Previously, an Illinois district court granted Class certification in that lawsuit for thousands of Jeep drivers.

Those Jeep drivers in the Fiat class action lawsuit allege that their cars are vulnerable to being hacked based on a Uconnect entertainment system inside the vehicles.

The drivers argue that these systems could be remotely hacked and controlled, a defect for which they blame the car manufacturer.

In July, three state-level Classes were certified by an Illinois district court based on consumer claims that the entertainment systems are defective.

Fiat argued in response that the infotainment systems are not “excessively vulnerable” and that the court erred in certifying hundreds of thousands of consumers.

The defendants in the Fiat class action lawsuit argue that since no plaintiff’s vehicle was actually hacked that the consumers have no standing for injury.

Those defendants referenced a 2013 decision from the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA in which the court held an injury must have been impending to meet the standing grounds for victims.

The consumers in the Fiat class action lawsuit, however, say that this previous decision is irrelevant since the defect exposing them to possible injury in the future is grounds enough.

The Class Members in that lawsuit argue that their vehicles didn’t come equipped with appropriate cybersecurity, meaning that the Clapper decision should be circumvented.

So far, more than 220,000 drivers in Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri were certified as Classes, a move the defendants say exposed them to significant damages when no hacking occurred. Fiat also argues that the court didn’t properly analyze whether the filers established predominance.

The defendants say that allowing plaintiffs to become certified Class Members when no true injury has occurred sets a dangerous precedent.

The original Fiat class action lawsuit was filed in August 2015 following the completion of a controlled experiment in which a Jeep Cherokee was successfully hacked, allowing the researchers to take over some functions in the car.

Owners of the impacted vehicles argue that the recall and repairs still left owners vulnerable to attacks, but Fiat countered that the repair patch indicated no hackers had been able to access the vehicles during the exposure period.

The consumers in the Fiat class action lawsuit are represented by Jeffrey Thomas McPherson, Christopher D. Baucom, Lucas Pendry and IJay Palansky of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Michael Gras and Christopher Cueto of the Law Office of Christopher Cueto Ltd., and Stephen R. Wigginton of the Law Office of Stephen R. Wigginton.

The Fiat Hacking Vulnerability Class Action Lawsuit is FCA US LLC, et al. v. Flynn, et al., Case No. 18-398, in the U.S. Supreme Court.