Ford Must Face Mustang ‘Track Ready’ Class Action Lawsuit

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.

Ford was unable to convince a federal judge to dismiss the bulk of claims in a class action lawsuit alleging 2016 Shelby GT­350 Mustangs contain a defect that cause them to overheat.

According to the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit, the Shelby Mustangs also are not “track ready” as advertised.

The plaintiffs argued that they ended up deciding to purchase the vehicles based on advertising that the Mustangs were ready to hit the track.

However, the overheating problem made the cars dangerous to drive, alleged the plaintiffs.

Ford argued that the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit should be dismissed, but only succeeded in trimming seven of the 59 claims. “The fifty-nine claims fall into two major categories: warranty claims and fraud claims,” explains the order in the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno trimmed claims under Florida, New York, Washington, and Oregon law for breach of implied warranty.

Judge Moreno pointed out that laws regarding breach of implied warranty in these states require “privity,” or evidence of a relationship, between the two parties. Claims under California warranty law were also dismissed.

“According to the Second Amended Complaint, the vehicles suffer from manufacturing and design defects that make them unsuitable and unsafe for track driving,” noted the judge in his order regarding the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs allege that the ‘Track-Ready’ powertrain system is designed defectively in that it overheats prematurely and enters ‘Limp Mode’ without providing any warning or communication to the driver. When the vehicles enter Limp Mode, they rapidly decelerate, and a driver can become disoriented and lose control, thereby increasing the risk of an accident.”

The judge refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims under 11 state laws.

“ln essence, Ford argues that the allegation that it failed to disclose the information about Limp Mode does not hold water because Plaintiffs simultaneously allege that information was disclosed,” notes the order in the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit.

However, pointed out the judge in his order, the plaintiffs in the Ford Mustang class action lawsuit asserted that they relied on marketing materials that indicated the Shelby was track-ready, including pictures of the car on racetracks.

The judge also pointed out that the plaintiffs established that they would have paid less for or not purchased the vehicle had they known the cars were not track-ready.

“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they paid a price premium as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, and that they would have paid less or not purchased their vehicles at all had they been aware of the alleged misrepresentations,” notes the judge.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Catherine Y.N. Gannon of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Stuart Z. Grossman and Rachel Furst of Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen.

The Ford Mustang Class Action Lawsuit is George and Diana Tershakovec, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-21087, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.