GM Fuel Economy Class Action Denied Provisional 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.

A Michigan federal judge partially denied provisional certification of a proposed class action lawsuit against General Motors alleging the automaker overstated the fuel economy ratings of three vehicles.

U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh denied plaintiff Sean Tolmasoff’s motions for provisional class certification in part, stating it would be improper because Tolmasoff’s complaint does not contain a plea for final injunctive or declaratory relief except for a pro forma request in the “prayer for relief” section of the complaint.

However, Judge Steeh did grant Tolmasoff’s request to designate his current counsel of record as interim class counsel but denied the motion to invalidate the releases and enjoin GM’s communications, ruling that Tolmasoff failed to satisfy all the necessary elements for injunctive relief.

The motion to invalidate releases and enjoin GM arises from a “reimbursement” program initiated by GM.

GM mailed letters to the affected customers, apologizing for the “unintentional error” and offered recipients a “reimbursement” purportedly based on the estimated increased cost of fueling the vehicle over five years due to GM’s error – either a prepaid debit card worth between $750 and $1,500 or an extended warranty.

“Moreover, unilaterally invalidating the releases that have been signed so far would potentially be unfair to those who have executed the releases,” Judge Steeh wrote. “These individuals may well be satisfied with GM’s offer of compensation.”

Though the use of terms like “reimbursement” and “compensation” can be argued as misleading, perhaps implying to some potential Class Members that the offer is a result of some settlement or verdict, when taken as a whole, the communications are not likely to trick vehicle owners, Judge Steeh said.

“On the website, GM repeatedly explains that a customer who accepts the reimbursement offer waives his or her right to any claim or action,” Judge Steeh wrote. “The website mentions the three class action lawsuits, and it even links to the complaints. GM’s website explains that it is purely GM’s view that the reimbursement offer is fair, not the court’s or the class-action attorneys’.”

“Because the communications were neither coercive or misleading … the court will not at this time enjoin GM from communicating with the potential class members,” the judge added, noting also that it was also be inappropriate to undo any vehicle owner’s’ acceptance of the reimbursement for this same reason.

In his complaint, Tolmasoff alleges that until May 2016, GM was overstating the fuel economy of thee class vehicles: the 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, the 2016 Buick Enclave, and the 2016 GMC Acadia, misleading consumers.

Tolmasoff seeks to represent a Class of purchasers and lessees of the Class vehicles including a nationwide Class and a Florida Class which may include more than 130,000 people.

Tolmasoff is represented by E. Powell Miller and Sharon Almonrode of Miller Law Firm PC; Richard D. McCune, David C. Wright, Joseph G. Sauder, Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of McCuneWright LLP.

The GM Fuel Economy Class Action Lawsuit is Sean Tolmasoff v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-11747, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

UPDATE: On July 19, 2017, GM agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming it falsely stated the fuel economy in three sport utility vehicles was 22 miles per gallon, when it really was 17 miles per gallon. The GM affected vehicles include the 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, the 2016 Buick Enclave, and the 2016 GMC Acadia.