Audi class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: Two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Audi of America Inc., Volkswagen AG and Audi AG.
- Why: The plaintiffs claim Audi concealed defective water pumps and denied repairs on affected vehicles, such as the Audi A4.
- Where: The Audi class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges certain Audi vehicles have defective water pumps that can cause catastrophic engine damage.
Plaintiffs Doug Larr and Kaelin Crawford filed the class action complaint against Volkswagen Group of America, Audi of America, Volkswagen and Audi on May 18 in New Jersey federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.
The class action lawsuit alleges that certain model year 2018-2024 Audi vehicles, including Audi A4, A5, S5, RS 5 and SQ5 models, are equipped with defective water pumps that can cause coolant leaks and lead to catastrophic engine damage.
“Unlike ordinary external coolant leaks that are visible to drivers and technicians, the defect permits coolant to migrate internally through the vacuum system, often without immediately observable external leakage, thereby concealing the severity of the condition until substantial damage has already occurred,” the Audi class action lawsuit says.
The class action claims that the water pump defect is a known issue that Audi has failed to adequately address, leaving consumers with costly repair bills and diminished vehicle value.
Audi water pumps defective since at least 2018, lawsuit claims
According to the complaint, the defect affects Audi vehicles equipped with 2.9T and 3.0T EA839 engines. The water pumps in these vehicles are prone to premature failure, allowing coolant to leak internally and cause engine damage.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Audi has known about the defect since at least 2018 but has failed to disclose it to consumers or provide an adequate fix.
As a result, many Audi owners have been forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to repair their vehicles, the plaintiffs say. Larr and Crawford allege they each paid in excess of $1,000 to repair their vehicles after the water pump defect caused engine damage.
The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all owners of affected Audi vehicles, including those with the Audi A4. The lawsuit is seeking reimbursement for repair costs as well as damages for diminished vehicle value.
The plaintiffs are suing for violations of California and New Jersey consumer protection laws, breach of warranty and fraud. They are seeking damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Another lawsuit targeting Audi alleges the company knew, since at least 2019, that certain vehicles had a door lock defect that could lock passengers in or out of the vehicles but failed to disclose the issue or recall the vehicles.
What do you think of the allegations made in this Audi class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
The Audi class action lawsuit is Larr, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05678, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
8 thoughts onAudi class action alleges automaker concealed defective water pumps and denied repairs
I just purchased a 2019 Audi S5 Sportback with 62,520 miles on it at a local Audi dealership. Bought (6/15/26). Drove it about 2000 miles and got a coolant temperature warning flash on the dash very briefly on (7/8/26). Pulled over instantly check my oil and coolant temperatures. All normal. Plugged in my scanner and the code read engine block coolant sensor. Took it to the dealership the next day. They took it in and found the early signs of coolant migration in the vacuum system due to an internally failing water pump. They recommended full cooling system overhaul. I did purchase the most expensive and best extended warranty package at the time of purchase so I am currently waiting on approval for the warranty work. Hopefully there will be no fuss about that on the warranty side.
Please add me to this class action lawsuit.
Vehicle Manufacturer / Dealership Dispute – 2022 Audi e-tron Sportback
My case involves a 2022 Audi e-tron Sportback and a pattern of unresolved electrical, charging, thermal-management, braking, and drivetrain concerns that began after a federally mandated recall service and continued through the expiration of the vehicle’s factory warranty. The central issue is not simply that components ultimately failed; it is that Audi South Atlanta repeatedly returned the vehicle to me as “operating as designed” while failing to provide documented root-cause analyses for numerous complaints that were reported during the warranty period and later progressed into confirmed hardware failures.
In December 2025, my vehicle was sent to Audi South Atlanta so the dealership could evaluate the high-voltage battery after concerns raised during collision repairs. Audi South Atlanta concluded that the battery was safe and that the vehicle was safe to proceed with repairs. I possess a voicemail from my service advisor confirming that everything looked fine with the battery and that the only faults present were related to the bumper being disconnected. This is important because it establishes Audi South Atlanta’s documented position that the vehicle’s high-voltage system was safe and that no disqualifying damage existed at that time.
The following day after Recall 90TV became active within Audi’s dealer system, my vehicle was already in Audi South Atlanta’s custody. Despite having the vehicle in their possession and despite the recall being active, the dealership released the vehicle without performing the recall or documenting any concerns related to that recall campaign.
In February 2026, I returned the vehicle to Audi South Atlanta for Recall 90TV and calibration work. I was initially told the work would take only a few days. Instead, the vehicle remained in dealership custody for weeks. Audi South Atlanta’s own records later documented that the recall required multiple attempts before completion. Following this recall and calibration visit, the condition of the vehicle changed significantly.
Immediately after receiving the vehicle back, I began experiencing numerous issues that had not been present before the recall service. These included substantial range reduction, charging concerns, brake drag, excessive brake dust, regenerative braking abnormalities, HVAC performance concerns, infotainment issues, telematics concerns, and recurring alarm system malfunctions. I repeatedly reported these issues to Audi South Atlanta and Audi of America.
Rather than identifying a root cause, Audi South Atlanta repeatedly returned the vehicle to me with statements such as “working as designed,” “within specification,” or “no problem found.” However, the documentation generated during these visits contains numerous inconsistencies.
One of the most significant concerns involves a P29FF00 Hybrid/EV Battery Thermal Runaway fault that appeared during the March 2026 diagnostic process. Despite the seriousness of a thermal-management fault within a high-voltage electric vehicle, the code was cleared, Technical Assistance Center involvement was documented, and the vehicle was ultimately returned to me without any documented root-cause determination explaining why the fault occurred, what testing was performed, what physical defect caused the event, or what repair permanently corrected it.
Audi’s own service standards, technician training procedures, and ODIS Guided Fault Finding protocols require technicians to identify root causes through testing, freeze-frame analysis, adaptation monitoring, and component verification. To date, I have never been provided with documentation demonstrating that those procedures were followed before Audi South Atlanta concluded that the vehicle was operating normally.
Further concerns arose when I began comparing Audi South Atlanta’s invoices, Service Health Reports, and warranty records.
The dealership’s Service Health Reports and customer-facing invoices often appear to reach materially different conclusions regarding the same complaints. For example, one Service Health Report appears to attribute concerns reported after the recall visit to vehicle damage and references regenerative braking issues in a manner that suggests damage occurred. However, the customer-facing invoices repeatedly state that regenerative braking concerns, brake dust concerns, and brake drag concerns were normal and that no problem was found. These records cannot all be accurate simultaneously.
Additionally, the very same dealership that concluded in December 2025 that the vehicle was safe and free of battery-related damage later appeared to attribute post-recall complaints to damage without identifying when that damage was discovered, what component was damaged, how the damage was diagnosed, or why no repair was recommended if damage actually existed.
The credibility of Audi South Atlanta’s records became even more concerning when I discovered multiple versions of invoices containing different language and different information. During meetings with dealership management and Audi of America representatives, impossible documentation discrepancies were identified. Tire tread measurements appeared to increase without tire replacement. Brake pad measurements appeared to increase without brake replacement. Management acknowledged that portions of the documentation could not be explained and indicated that technicians needed to be spoken with regarding the inconsistencies.
Another major concern involves the absence of a standard video inspection during one of the vehicle’s most critical diagnostic visits. For months, Audi South Atlanta routinely generated technician video inspections. However, during the period when dozens of faults were present, corporate review was occurring, and significant complaints had been escalated, the normal video inspection process disappeared entirely.
The alarm system defect is another example of Audi’s conclusions conflicting with observable facts. The alarm malfunction was physically demonstrated in person at the dealership and remained active. Nevertheless, I later received communications indicating that concerns from my checklist had been reviewed and addressed within Audi specifications despite the defect remaining unresolved.
In June 2026, after months of Audi South Atlanta concluding that the vehicle was operating as designed, Audi North Atlanta independently evaluated the vehicle. Unlike Audi South Atlanta, Audi North Atlanta immediately duplicated my grinding concern during a road test and diagnosed a faulty rear electric drive motor transmission. Audi North Atlanta further advised that the vehicle should not be driven because continued operation could cause additional damage. The same dealership also diagnosed a failed charging socket lock actuator and identified an additional wheel bearing failure.
The significance of Audi North Atlanta’s findings is that they transformed concerns that Audi South Atlanta repeatedly characterized as normal into documented mechanical failures. These findings raise substantial questions regarding whether the symptoms reported throughout 2026 represented early warning signs of failures that Audi South Atlanta failed to properly diagnose while the vehicle remained under warranty.
My position is not that every problem was necessarily caused by the recall itself. My position is that after a recall procedure that required multiple attempts and resulted in an unusually lengthy dealership stay, numerous new symptoms appeared. Audi South Atlanta repeatedly concluded that the vehicle was operating as designed, yet the dealership has never produced the engineering analysis, diagnostic records, ODIS session logs, Guided Fault Finding reports, freeze-frame data, or root-cause documentation necessary to support those conclusions.
I am seeking legal representation regarding potential claims involving breach of warranty, failure to properly diagnose and repair defects reported during the warranty period, documentation irregularities, potential violations of consumer protection laws, and Audi’s handling of defects that were repeatedly reported before ultimately progressing into confirmed hardware failures.
Vehicle: 2022 Audi e-tron Sportback
VIN: WA12AAGE2NB030832
Dealership Primarily Involved: Audi South Atlanta
Subsequent Diagnosing Dealer: Audi North Atlanta
Total Dealership Custody: Approximately 80+ days
Primary Issues: Recall-related timeline, charging concerns, HVAC concerns, thermal-management faults, alarm defects, brake drag, regenerative braking concerns, excessive brake dust, range loss, drivetrain failure, documentation inconsistencies, and unresolved root-cause analyses.
The Reality of 2024 Audi Ownership: Concealed TSBs, Safety Stalls, and Corporate Pressure
I am sharing my experience as a 2024 Audi owner because consumers deserve transparency. My vehicle suffered three related failures covered under Audi’s own Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), yet the dealer repeatedly claimed each issue was “unrelated” and tried to charge me out of pocket. Each time they claimed it was fixed, it broke down again.
The Recording: During arbitration, Audi’s attorney stated on the record that a transmission failure on a 2024 Audi with under 23,000 miles was “normal wear and tear.”
The Correction: After the hearing, the arbitrator issued a formal corrected decision acknowledging major factual errors caused by being misled by the manufacturer—specifically overlooking my documented brake warnings and the J587 module repair.
The Safety Impact: My vehicle later stalled completely in live traffic, creating a severe safety hazard and medical impact.
The Financial Pressure: Because the car is unsafe to drive, I suffered a total loss of use and was forced to purchase a second vehicle. Audi Financial then accelerated my account into active repossession while this dispute was still active.
I am posting this so consumers are aware of how repeated failures, concealed TSBs, misleading statements, and repossession pressure can occur even when a vehicle is under a full manufacturer warranty. I hope Audi will address these issues and choose transparency and accountability over forcing customers to walk away.
2018 Audi Q5 2.0 Premium Plus – Coolant leak Defective water pump and thermostat housing and auxiliary water pump issue add me please and have already had the repair done and I do have receipts
Add me please
I purchased a 2019 Audi S5. Car only has 28,500 miles and I am seeing the beginning of coolant migration into the Vacuum Solenoids. This is definitely a design flaw. How do I join the class action suit against Audi? Count me in.
2017 Audi A4 Quattro 2.0L Premium Plus – Coolant leak Defective water pump and thermostat housing and auxiliary water pump
Add me please