Nissan class action claims automaker refuses to honor purchase amount at end of lease

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.

Nissan lease class action: 

• Who: A Nissan lessee sued the automaker. 
• Why: The plaintiff alleges Nissan doesn’t honor its lease extension agreements. 
• Where: The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court.

Nissan breaches its lease extension agreements, requiring lessees to pay “thousands of dollars” in excess of their vehicle’s residual value and the negotiated price to purchase the vehicle at term-end, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Joshua Silver filed the class action lawsuit against Nissan-Infiniti LT LLC and Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC on Feb. 7 in a New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. 

According to the Nissan lease class action, Nissan offers consumers lease extension options that they can take up when their initial lease has ended. 

Under the Purchase Option provision of the lease extension agreement, lessees are entitled to purchase their leased vehicle at the end of their lease extension term for a defined, fixed purchase amount equal to the residual value of the leased vehicle at term-end, plus applicable fees and taxes, the lawsuit states. 

Lessees rely on the fixed purchase option price defined in their lease extension agreement to dictate the purchase amount they can expect to pay should they choose to buy the car at the end of the lease extension term, the Nissan class action says. 

At term-end, however, Nissan refuses to honor the purchase amount defined by the purchase option provision and “instead seeks thousands of dollars in additional costs equal to the residual value of lessees’ expired initial lease agreement,” the lawsuit alleges. 

Nissan purchase option provision a misrepresentation, lawsuit alleges

Nissan’s practice of reverting back to the initial lease agreement renders the purchase option provision a “material misrepresentation” by the automaker, the Nissan class action alleges.

When Nissan disregards the lease agreement provisions and forces extension lessees to pay the residual value of their expired lease agreements rather than the express purchase option price in the lease extension agreement, the purchase amount “often grossly exceeds the then-present residual value of the vehicle,” the lawsuit says.

Silver seeks to represent all consumer lessees nationwide who entered into a lease extension agreement with Nissan or their affiliates for a five-month term or longer and who attempted to or did exercise their purchase option under their lease extension agreement at term-end during the last six years, plus a New York class.

He sued for breach of contract and breach of New York General Business Law.

Silver seeks certification of the class action, an injunction blocking Nissan from continuing the alleged illegal warranty practice, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. 

In January, Nissan began issuing notifications about a data breach that affected one of its third-party service providers and exposed the private information of almost 18,000 of the automaker’s customers. 

Are you affected by the claims in this Nissan case? Let us know in the comments. 

The plaintiff is represented by Devin Freedman, Ivy T. Ngo and Maya S. Jumper of Freedman Normand Friesland LLP.

The Nissan lease class action lawsuit is Joshua Silver, et al. v. Nissan-Infiniti LT LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Hyundai, Kia settlement involving 2.1M vehicles with defective engines gets initial approval
• Honda issues “Do Not Drive” warning for cars equipped with Takata Alpha driver-side airbag inflators
• Chrysler Pacifica class action alleges vehicles contain dangerous shutdown risk
• Automobile companies Volvo, BMW, Mercedes issue recalls in December, January