The People Behind the NHTSA Complaint Numbers
A family is driving home from vacation on the freeway. Three young kids are buckled in the back seat. The speed limit is 70 mph. There is nothing in the road ahead. Then the car slams on its own brakes, hard, decelerating from 75 mph toward 40 mph in seconds. The seatbelts lock. Everyone is thrown forward. The children are frightened. The adult driver stares into the rearview mirror at a massive truck that has just swerved into the grass median to avoid driving through the back of the car. That is not a product review. That is not a minor inconvenience. That is the kind of event that ends lives.
A woman is driving alone at 40 mph on a rural road in Virginia. Good visibility. No cars. No obstacles. The brakes engage so suddenly and so hard she sustains actual injuries: pain to her neck and shoulders. She files a complaint with the court. She is one of two named plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit. She is required by her own vehicle’s behavior to turn off a safety system she paid for and believed in, every single morning, as a ritual of basic self-preservation.
A man is making a routine left-hand turn at an intersection. The AEB activates in the middle of his turn. His car loses power in the intersection. Oncoming vehicles are forced to swerve to avoid hitting him broadside. He escapes. He complains to the dealership on multiple occasions. Each time, he is told the car is functioning properly. No repair is ever attempted.
These are not edge cases surfacing in obscure beta software. These are people who spent tens of thousands of dollars specifically because Subaru ran television commercials showing their cars stop themselves before hitting children, pedestrians, and trucks. The ads featured a voiceover saying “life doesn’t give you many second chances, but a Subaru can.” The people in these NHTSA complaints got their second chance because of luck, not because the system worked.
The deepest betrayal is the specific one: Subaru’s marketing didn’t just promise a reliable car. It promised protection. It sold parents peace of mind for the moments when they are distracted by their kids in the back seat, the exact scenario dramatized in its own Ascent commercial. When that promise turns out to have been built on defective software, the breach isn’t financial. It’s the destruction of the specific belief that your car would not kill you or your children through its own malfunction.
Legal Receipts: What the Documents Actually Say
The following are direct verbatim quotes from the class action complaint and the NHTSA consumer complaint database. They are not paraphrased.
Class Action Complaint, Para. 12 — Core Defect Allegation
“Subaru failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the Class before or during the time of sale that the AEB systems in Class Vehicles have design, manufacturing, and workmanship defects, including, but not limited to, poor calibration of the software from multiple control modules, including the ABS Control Module, such that they are prone to activating the brakes when there are no objects in front of and/or behind the vehicle. The AEB systems also sometimes fail to entirely activate when there are persons or objects in front of the vehicle.”
- This paragraph establishes the dual failure mode at the heart of the lawsuit: the system both triggers when nothing is there and fails to trigger when something is. Both failure modes create crash risk. Subaru allegedly knew and did not disclose either.
- The citation of “poor calibration of the software from multiple control modules” points to an integration-level failure, meaning this is not a single bad sensor. Multiple systems, including the ABS module, the transmission control module, and the engine control module, are alleged to be miscommunicating.
Class Action Complaint, Para. 17 — Knowledge and Concealment Timeline
“Based on pre-production testing, including design failure mode analysis, quality monitoring data, quality control audits, early warranty claims, replacement part orders, consumer complaints submitted to Subaru’s authorized network of dealers, the NHTSA, and online forums dedicated to Subaru vehicles, Defendant was aware of the Defects in the Class Vehicles as early as 2012. Despite being aware of the Defects and receiving numerous complaints, Subaru knowingly, actively, and affirmatively failed to disclose the Defects.”
- The complaint places Subaru’s knowledge of the defect at the same year EyeSight was first introduced into production vehicles (2013 model year). This means the system launched with known problems, according to the allegations.
- “Knowingly, actively, and affirmatively” is legally significant language. It frames the concealment not as an oversight but as an intentional corporate decision.
Class Action Complaint, Para. 7 — The Reset Trap
“Even when the Pre-Collision Braking System is turned off, if the ignition switch is turned off and the engine is then restarted, the Pre-Collision Braking System will be turned on. The system default setting when the vehicle is restarted is ‘ON’.”
- This means the only available “fix” Subaru’s own dealerships offered to owners, which was to manually disable the system, fails the moment the driver turns off and restarts their car. Every trip begins with a dangerous system re-engaged by default.
- The complaint frames this as “an ineffective solution for a vehicle feature that has been advertised to function properly.” Drivers who forget to disable the system on a given restart are immediately at risk again.
NHTSA Complaint ID 11534026 — 2022 Forester, South Milwaukee, WI
“While driving home from vacation (07/23/2023), we were on the freeway. My 3 young children were in the back seat. We were going about 75-80MPH, as the speed limit was 70MPH on the highway. My cruise control was NOT on, and there were no cars in front of us. However the collision breaking went off and it put the breaks down HARD. My kids all went flying forward causing the seatbelts to lock along with me and my husband being thrown forward (we were also wearing seatbelts). As scary as that is, the worst part was there was a very large truck behind us who almost slammed into the back of us. Thankfully he swerved and went into the grass to avoid hitting us.”
- The driver was operating the vehicle at legal highway speeds with no active driver-assist features engaged, yet the AEB fired. The near-collision was prevented only by the reaction of the driver behind, not by the Subaru system.
- This complaint was filed with NHTSA, creating a public record Subaru is legally obligated to monitor. It was filed more than a year before the class action was filed.
NHTSA Complaint ID 11707689 — 2024 Crosstrek, Ballwin, MO
“The 2024 Subaru Crosstrek brakes engaged TWICE without the driver pushing on the brakes, slowing the car down significantly. The initial vehicle speed was around 65 mph on the highway, and slowed to around 45 mph after the second automatic braking incident occurred. Adaptive cruise control was NOT on. The car in front of the Crosstrek was 8-10 car lengths away. Then while the Crosstrek was still moving, a truck hit the back right bumper of the Crosstrek and pushed it into the next lane to the left.”
- This is one of the complaints in the dataset marked “Crash: Yes, Injuries: 1.” The vehicle was totaled, according to the complaint. State Farm insurance declared it a total loss and pulled data from the vehicle’s Event Data Recorder.
- The complaint explicitly connects the unprovoked braking to the subsequent crash, arguing the defect directly caused the collision. This is precisely the harm pattern the class action describes.
Class Action Complaint, Para. 22 — Denials Despite Knowledge
“Subaru knew about the Defects present in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant safety problems, and failed to disclose—and actively concealed—this information from Plaintiffs and Class members at the time of sale, lease, repair, and thereafter. In fact, instead of repairing the Class Vehicles, Subaru has insisted that the vehicles are working correctly.”
- The claim that Subaru “insisted that the vehicles are working correctly” is corroborated by multiple individual NHTSA complaints, in which owners report being told by dealerships that no fault codes were found and that the vehicle was operating normally.
- This pattern of denial, repeated consistently across multiple owners and multiple states, supports the complaint’s argument that the response was coordinated at the corporate level rather than a series of independent dealer errors.
Sold on Safety: The Advertising vs. the Reality
Subaru built its entire brand identity around the promise that its vehicles would protect families. The EyeSight system was the centerpiece of that promise. The documented reality of the system’s performance contradicts every specific claim Subaru made in the channels it used to close sales.
- Claimed: EyeSight “can even bring you to a full stop if necessary” to prevent a frontal collision. Reality: The complaint alleges EyeSight does bring vehicles to a full stop, but frequently when no obstacle exists, creating the rear-end collision risk EyeSight was supposed to prevent.
- Claimed: A 2014 television commercial showed a Subaru Legacy detecting a wall at “apparently high speed” and stopping before impact, with a voiceover stating “nobody beats Subaru models with EyeSight for front crash prevention.” Reality: According to the complaint, the vehicle in the commercial was never traveling above 20 mph, and EyeSight cannot prevent a collision when the speed differential between the vehicle and the object ahead exceeds 20 mph. The commercial created a false perception of the system’s capability.
- Claimed: Marketing for the 2026 Outback announced the “latest version of EyeSight” as “more advanced” than ever, with radar sensors, wider cameras, and faster processing. Reality: A January 5, 2026 Product Enhancement Program bulletin was required to address software defects affecting core EyeSight functions in that exact vehicle, including Hands-Free Assist and Emergency Stop Assist.
- Claimed: EyeSight system limitations are disclosed to consumers. Reality: The complaint alleges limitations are disclosed only in owners’ manuals provided after the sale is complete, buried hundreds of pages deep, and specifically fail to warn that the system may trigger on shadows, parked cars, trash cans, guard rails, road reflectors, exhaust smoke, or ordinary curves in the road.
- Claimed: An Ascent commercial showed the car protecting a distracted father from a sudden crash, with a voiceover promising “a second chance.” Reality: Multiple NHTSA complaints describe the AEB system failing to activate when a genuine obstacle appeared, the opposite of the advertised function, while activating falsely in scenarios like a cyclist in a bike lane or shadows from trees.
Profit-Maximization: What Keeping the Secret Was Worth
The complaint makes a direct financial argument: Subaru concealed the defects specifically to sell more vehicles at full price, knowing that disclosure would have depressed sales or forced price reductions.
- Subaru’s US vehicle sales for calendar year 2025 totaled 643,591 vehicles, according to the complaint. EyeSight-equipped models make up a large portion of Subaru’s lineup. The financial consequence of disclosing a known safety defect in those vehicles before sale would have been material.
- The complaint states directly that Subaru “did this to increase profits by selling additional Class Vehicles at inflated prices.” The alleged motive is not negligence or ignorance. It is documented as a financial decision to suppress known safety information.
- Subaru previously settled a case addressing the same defect in earlier model years: Sampson v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.). The current complaint argues that settlement produced no meaningful remediation, and the same defective system architecture was carried forward into 2022-2026 models, generating another cycle of sales revenue from vehicles with the same unresolved problem.
- The system is designed to re-enable itself at every ignition cycle, meaning drivers cannot permanently opt out of a safety feature Subaru advertised as a selling point. The complaint characterizes dealership instructions to “just turn it off” as an ineffective non-solution that preserves the appearance of a functioning safety product while placing the burden of managing a corporate defect entirely on the consumer.
- Subaru’s own owner manuals acknowledge system limitations, but those manuals are provided only after the purchase transaction is complete. The limitations disclosed post-sale include failure in inclement weather and construction zones. The limitations not disclosed even post-sale include failure on curves, ramps, driveways, in the presence of parked cars, and in response to stationary objects like trash cans or roadside guardrails.
Time as a Corporate Weapon: A Decade of Known Defects
The timeline between Subaru’s alleged first knowledge of the defect and the filing of this lawsuit spans more than thirteen years, during which the company continued marketing EyeSight as a premium safety feature across an expanding lineup of vehicles.
- 2012: EyeSight first introduced in production vehicles (2013 Legacy and Outback). The complaint alleges Subaru had knowledge of defects through pre-production testing and design failure mode analysis at this date. Two TSBs were also issued this same year addressing windshield repair zones and device mounting near the camera, demonstrating Subaru knew the cameras were sensitive to interference from the very beginning.
- 2015: Subaru issued a recall of certain 2015-2016 model vehicles due to a programming defect causing the Driver Assist System to fail to detect a brake lamp switch failure, resulting in no automatic braking. This is a documented public acknowledgment of AEB system failure requiring a software reprogram across affected vehicles.
- 2016: The complaint alleges that by this date, the volume of similar consumer complaints had put Subaru on notice that problems were systemic rather than individual incidents.
- 2019: NHTSA opened an investigation into AEB system malfunctions across multiple automakers, including Subaru models, in response to widespread driver complaints. Multiple TSBs were issued this year addressing EyeSight camera reprogramming and VDC module failures.
- 2021: The prior class action, Sampson v. Subaru of America, was filed in New Jersey, covering earlier model years with the same defect. Subaru settled it. No permanent fix was implemented.
- January 2026: A Product Enhancement Program bulletin was issued to address EyeSight software defects in 2026 Outback models, covering core safety functions. This is the most recent documented acknowledgment that the system still requires software correction in the newest vehicles on the market.
- 2026: The current class action is filed, covering model years 2022-2026 across eight vehicle lines. By the complaint’s own timeline, Subaru had between four and fourteen years of internal knowledge, depending on the specific model year, before this lawsuit was filed.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
