Claims Dropped From GM Emissions Cheating 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.

More than a dozen claims were trimmed from a GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit that looks to hold the car maker accountable for allegedly using defeat devices to trick emissions testing in its Silverado and Sierra vehicles.

Lead plaintiffs accused GM of including software in diesel powered trucks in order to advertise the vehicles as having low emissions.

According to the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit, the car maker deliberately deceived consumers by marketing 2011-2016 GM Silverado 2500HD and 3500HD trucks, as well as GM Sierra 2500HD and 3500HD vehicles as “clean” diesel.

In actuality, the diesel trucks emitted more pollution than standard vehicles, but could pass emissions testing by the use of three “defeat devices,” alleged the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit.

GM faces federal racketeering (RICO) claims, as well as allegations based on violations of various state laws. The plaintiffs also claim that they overpaid for the vehicles based on the allegedly false emissions ratings.

In a recent decision, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas L. Ludington trimmed a fraction of the more than 50 claims made in the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit but will allow the plaintiffs to amend 10 of those claims.

In response to Judge Ludington’s decision not to dismiss the case earlier this year, the car maker argued for dismissal of 24 state law claims in the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit. The federal RICO claims remain, along with various state law allegations.

The GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit was trimmed of several claims based on consumer protection laws in states that did not provide for punitive damages as demanded by the plaintiffs.

The judge pointed out that state consumer protection laws in Kentucky and Idaho require a direct relationship between GM and the purchaser.

Claims based on these state laws were also dismissed by Judge Ludington because the plaintiffs in the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit failed to establish a direct relationship between the buyer and seller in these states.

Similarly, the judge dismissed GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit claims based on a Wisconsin law about fraudulent representation.

The plaintiffs contended that GM was required to disclose the presence of defeat devices under the state law; however, Judge Ludington determined that this failure to notify GM truck purchasers did not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs in the GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit were given leave to amend a number of allegations Judge Ludington dismissed, including a claim based on Louisiana state law.

The GM emissions cheating class action lawsuit was initiated in the aftermath of reports that several major car makers, including Fiat Chrysler and Volkswagen, had installed emission cheating software into their vehicles.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Jessica Thompson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode and Dennis A. Lienhardt of Miller Law Firm PC, Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP, Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP, James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, David S. Stellings of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd PC, and Joseph Henry “Hank” Bates and Randall K. Pulliam of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC.

The GM Emissions Cheating Class Action Lawsuit is Fenner, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11661, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.