Porsche Asks Judge to Dismiss Windshield Glare Class Action

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.

Porsche Cars North America Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit that alleges their beige colored dashboards create an “unsafe glare” on the windshield in some of their vehicles.

Lead plaintiffs Roy Jones and Alyce Rubinfeld filed the Porsche class action lawsuit claiming that the Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Panamera both contain dashboards that reflect images onto the windshields “when the sun is at a certain angle relative to the dashboard and windshield.”

The automobile manufacturer asked the California federal court to dismiss the Porsche windshield class action lawsuit on Friday arguing that the plaintiffs simply have a case of “buyer’s remorse” and have no evidence to support the so-called defect.

According to Porsche, all transparent glass is reflective and “all automotive windshields are made of transparent glass and are therefore reflective.” 
The car company further argued that the plaintiffs did not give a date when they first noticed the alleged defect nor have they claimed that the windshield glare resulted in any out-of-pocket costs.

The defendants allege that the Porsche windshield glare class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Jones and Rubinfeld also did not claim that the supposed defect prevented them from using their respective vehicles.

In their motion to dismiss the windshield glare class action lawsuit, Porsche stated that the plaintiffs have not shown (and cannot show) any injury related to the defect.

The plaintiffs have accused Porsche of violating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act but the automobile manufacturer claims that according to the CLRA, the plaintiffs should have first notified the defendant “of the alleged violation and allow the defendant an opportunity to remedy it.” Porsche further states that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to “sidestep” the remedy provision of the CLRA without consequence.

According to Porsche, consumers choose to purchase vehicles with the beige dashboards because they love the color but the class action proposed by the plaintiffs would “rob” all future customers of that color choice.

The Porsche class action lawsuit alleged that the car manufacturer knew of the defect but concealed the issue by not informing Porsche owners of the problem. However, Porsche claims that “internal testing, records of customer complaints, dealership repair records, and other internal sources” show very little evidence or conclusion that the car manufacturer knew of the alleged defect.

Porsche also did not like the potential definition of Class Members which according to the plaintiffs would include any Porsche owner with a beige or light-colored dashboard sold in California. It does not specify any model or year of Porsche vehicles.

Based on evidence and lack of legal basis of the plaintiff’s allegations, Porsche asked the court to dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Robert K. Friedl, Tarek H. Zohdy and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC.

The Porsche Windshield Glare Class Action Lawsuit is Jones, et al. v. Porsche Cars North America Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05766, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On Dec. 18, 2016, Porsche agreed to settle several proposed class action lawsuits that accused the company of a windshield glare defect in certain vehicles that posed a safety hazard to drivers. 

UPDATE 2: July 2017, the Porsche dashboard glare class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.