Paul Tassin  |  September 27, 2016

Category: Consumer News

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.

Fiat-Chrysler-LogoA federal judge will allow a defective product class action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler to proceed, though with fewer claims than originally pled.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan granted in part and denied in part a motion for dismissal submitted by defendants Fiat Chrysler and Harmon International Industries.

Judge Reagan dismissed certain claims based on theories of warranty, fraud and negligence but will allow the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed.

Plaintiffs say their Fiat Chrysler vehicles are equipped with a defective electronic control system, the Harmon-made Uconnect, that is vulnerable to remote hacking, allowing an attacker to take control of the vehicle.

Judge Reagan found that plaintiffs Brian Flynn and Michael Keith adequately alleged Fiat Chrysler had harmed them in two ways: by alleging they overpaid for their vehicles because the defect existed at the time of purchase, making them worth less; and by alleging the defect caused an excessive depreciation of the vehicles’ resale values.

Judge Reagan did not agree with Flynn and Keith’s arguments that the increased risk of death or injury caused by the alleged Uconnect flaw is a harm adequate to give them standing to sue.

The judge noted that both risk and fear of future injury may confer standing only if there is a “substantial” risk that the feared injury will happen.

Judge Reagan found the odds of the plaintiffs’ vehicles actually being hacked are so slim that it didn’t create a “substantial” risk of harm.

Judge Reagan quickly dismissed arguments by Fiat Chrysler that the plaintiffs claims were preempted by federal law and that they constituted an impermissible collateral attack on an administrative conclusion by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As for the latter argument, Judge Reagan noted that the NHTSA’s findings regarding Fiat Chrysler’s voluntary recall did not have the finality or conclusiveness that would make them subject to a collateral attack.

As for the preemption argument, the judge determined that the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act would preempt an attempt by the plaintiffs to use state law to set up a recall. Their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are not so preempted, however.

The named plaintiffs initiated this Fiat Chrysler class action lawsuit in the summer of 2015, following publication of an article in Wired magazine. The article documented a demonstration by security researchers who hacked into the Uconnect system inside a 2014 Jeep Cherokee.

The researcher conducting the hack was reportedly able to remotely manipulate controls for the radio and climate control, then ultimately disable the vehicle’s transmission.

Following publication of the article, Fiat Chrysler conducted a voluntary recall of affected vehicles. The plaintiffs say that the recall remedy failed to fix all problems with the Uconnect system, however.

The claims of the other two named plaintiffs were sent to arbitration in July 2016.

Plaintiffs Kelly and George Brown had purchased their vehicle under a friend-of-employee discount agreement that included an arbitration provision. Judge Reagan stayed further court proceedings on the Brown’s claims until the arbitration is complete.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Christopher D. Baucom, Jay Palansky, Lucas T. Pendry, Emily Buckley and Stephen R. Wigginton of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Christopher F. Cueto, Lloyd M. Cueto and Michael J. Gras of Law Office of Christopher Cueto Ltd.

The Fiat Chrysler Uconnect Hacking Class Action Lawsuit is Flynn, et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00855, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

UPDATE: On Oct. 25, 2016, plaintiffs Kelly and George Brown who are part of a larger legal battle with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) over allegations the automaker knew the uConnect systems installed in their vehicles were vulnerable to hacking asked an Illinois federal judge to lift a discretionary stay imposed in the case.

UPDATE 2: On Oct. 13, 2017, the plaintiffs asked an Illinois federal judge to grant Class certification to a putative class action lawsuit that alleges some Fiat Chrysler vehicles are vulnerable to hacking.

UPDATE 3: On July 5, 2018, a judge agreed to certify Class Members from the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. The proposed nationwide Class was too “unwieldy,” stated the judge in his order.

UPDATE 4: On Dec. 11, 2018, 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.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

2 thoughts onFiat Chrysler Remote Hacking Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss

  1. Top Class Actions says:

    UPDATE: On Oct. 25, 2016, plaintiffs Kelly and George Brown who are part of a larger legal battle with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) over allegations the automaker knew the uConnect systems installed in their vehicles were vulnerable to hacking asked an Illinois federal judge to lift a discretionary stay imposed in the case.

  2. Susan Taylor says:

    Count me in I feel the same way

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.