Land Rover Sold 170,000 Defective Hybrids and Concealed It for Seven Years

THE FACTS: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHEN THEY KNEW IT

On July 9, 2026, Robert Sumrell filed a federal class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the company knowingly designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold 170,169 mild hybrid electric vehicles (MHEVs) equipped with defective DC/DC converters that can fail due to an internal fault in the boost control microchip.

The affected vehicles span seven model lines and six model years:

• 2020-2024 Land Rover Range Rover
• 2019-2024 Land Rover Range Rover Sport
• 2021-2024 Land Rover Range Rover Velar
• 2020-2023 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
• 2021-2024 Land Rover Discovery
• 2020-2024 Land Rover Defender
• 2020 Land Rover Discovery Sport

When the DC/DC converter fails, the vehicle’s 48-volt hybrid system can no longer charge the 12-volt battery. This triggers a cascade of electrical failures. According to the April 17, 2026 Part 573 Safety Recall Report filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the failure results in:

“A loss of 12V system charging, and a ‘Stop Safely Electrical Fault Detected’ red warning. Should the customer ignore this warning and continue to drive, additional warnings may appear. Continuation of the journey will result in the vehicle losing motive power and coasting to a stop after a period of time, and eventually losing exterior lighting. A loss of motive power, or of vehicle lighting, will increase the risk of a crash.”

Translation: your $80,000 luxury SUV will shut off in the middle of the highway, the headlights will go dark, and you will become invisible to other drivers. The defect does not announce itself with gradual symptoms. Consumers report sudden, catastrophic failure.

“The DC/DC converter completely failed on the highway. Shut down immediately while driving.” — Massachusetts consumer, February 9, 2026

Land Rover received its first consumer complaint about this defect in July 2019, the same year the company began rolling out its MHEV technology across its vehicle lineup. By the time the company issued its recall in April 2026, it had received 5,952 claims and field reports involving replacement of the DC/DC converter in the United States alone.

The lawsuit documents dozens of consumer complaints filed with NHTSA between 2020 and 2026. Here is a sample:

• March 25, 2020, Arizona (2020 Range Rover Velar): “THE CAR BASICALLY SHUT DOWN WHILE RUNNING. IT STARTED TO SHAKE AND THAN JUST POWERED DOWN, TWICE.”
• September 7, 2020, Florida (2020 Defender): “AT HIGH SPEEDS ON AN INTERSTATE, THE BATTERY WARNING LIGHT ACTIVATED. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND I WAS FORCED TO PULL OVER. FOLLOWING THIS, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACTIVATE WHATSOEVER. ALL POWER WAS LOST. I COULD NOT SHIFT GEAR.”
• June 10, 2021, Virginia (2021 Range Rover Sport): “[The vehicle] suddenly stop in the middle of the road with a gearbox faulted message, I can’t move a car from the park to neutral or drive mode. The local Sheriff had to call the towing guy to move a car from the road as it was in the middle of the road.”
• March 11, 2022, California (2021 Range Rover Sport): “[W]hile driving in a rural area of Interstate 5 in northern California when the vehicle lost power, I was unable to see anything at all and had to pull to the shoulder unsure of what was on the shoulder.”
• April 26, 2026, South Carolina (2020 Range Rover Evoque): “My vehicle experienced hybrid system failure, electrical failure, charging system failure, loss of drive power, electrical shutdown, and loss of exterior lighting at a busy intersection, while at a red light. My 73 yr old mother and I had to get out and direct traffic for over two hours, to keep my vehicle from getting hit or us being seriously injured, until a wrecker arrived.”

These are not isolated incidents. These are reports from a federal government database that Land Rover monitors as part of its regulatory obligations. The company knew.

THE MISCONDUCT: LAND ROVER REVIEWED THE DEFECT IN 2024 AND DID NOTHING

In its own filings with NHTSA, Land Rover admits that in September 2024, its Product Safety and Compliance Committee (PSCC) conducted a formal review of the defect. The conclusion? According to the company:

“It was concluded, given the gradual progression of symptoms experienced by the customer, that the issue did not pose an unreasonable risk to safety.”

This is corporate doublespeak. The “gradual progression of symptoms” described by Land Rover does not match the experiences reported by consumers. Multiple NHTSA complaints describe sudden, total loss of power with no prior warning. One consumer stated the converter “completely failed on the highway. Shut down immediately while driving.” Another reported the vehicle “suffered a sudden and total loss of motive power (high-speed stall) without prior symptoms.”

Land Rover’s internal conclusion that the defect posed “no unreasonable risk to safety” directly contradicts NHTSA’s later assessment. When the agency forced the recall in April 2026, it explicitly stated: “A loss of motive power, or of vehicle lighting, will increase the risk of a crash.”

After the PSCC review, Land Rover created a “dedicated engineering task force” in November 2025 to “understand the potential causes of the replacements and to focus on ensuring a robust resolution.” This task force worked for six months. During that time, Land Rover continued selling defective vehicles, continued receiving consumer complaints, and continued withholding information from buyers.

The lawsuit alleges that Land Rover knowingly concealed material facts from consumers, including:

• The existence of the defect in the DC/DC converters
• The fact that the vehicles were not merchantable for providing reliable, safe transportation
• The company’s intention to breach its warranty obligations by failing to provide timely repairs or replacements
• The misleading assurance that a recall remedy was “in development” when no remedy had been designed, tested, or approved

Land Rover marketed these vehicles as premium, safe, and reliable. The company’s website advertises the Defender’s “solid build quality and wide array of advanced safety features,” boasting that “the Defender safety and reliability will serve you well.” Land Rover posted press releases touting the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport’s “maximum five-star ratings” from Euro NCAP, emphasizing “more than 50 years of expertise in delivering exceptional breadth of all-terrain capability, refinement and safety.”

“The reliability of the Defender hinges on its solid build quality and wide array of advanced safety features. You can rest assured that the Defender safety and driver assist systems will keep you and your passengers safe and secure.” — Land Rover Paramus dealership website

This is what the lawsuit calls fraudulent concealment. The company advertised safety and reliability while selling vehicles it knew were defective. It collected premium prices for luxury SUVs that could shut down without warning. And when consumers began reporting failures, the company slow-walked the response for 18 months.

THE NON-FINANCIAL LEDGER: DIGNITY, SAFETY, AND TRUST DESTROYED

The plaintiff in this case, Robert Sumrell, purchased a pre-owned 2023 Land Rover Range Rover Velar in May 2026 from a dealership in Naperville, Illinois. He paid $33,300. The vehicle had 45,965 miles on the odometer. Sumrell reviewed Land Rover’s marketing materials before purchase. He understood that the vehicle came with a transferable limited warranty covering defects in materials and workmanship.

Within months, Sumrell’s vehicle began experiencing power system failures. The vehicle would stop running while he was driving. It would fail to auto-start while stopped in traffic, forcing him to turn the vehicle off and then on again to regain power. Dashboard warning lights would illuminate and then turn off without explanation. Various low-voltage electronic systems did not function properly.

Sumrell is not alone. The lawsuit catalogs the experiences of dozens of consumers who filed complaints with NHTSA. These are not abstractions. These are real people describing real terror:

• A Virginia driver whose 2021 Range Rover Sport “suddenly stop in the middle of the road” three times within two months, requiring a sheriff to call a tow truck to move the car out of traffic.
• A California driver whose 2020 Range Rover Evoque lost all power on the 405 Freeway at 40-50 mph with two passengers inside, rendering the hazard lights inoperable and leaving the vehicle “invisible to high-speed traffic during the failure.”
• A South Carolina driver whose 2020 Range Rover Evoque failed at a busy intersection. The driver and her 73-year-old mother “had to get out and direct traffic for over two hours, to keep my vehicle from getting hit or us being seriously injured, until a wrecker arrived.”
• A New Jersey driver whose 2020 Range Rover Sport lost all power on the turnpike after receiving a red warning light. The driver stated: “I was scared to death [i]t was completely DEAD. I had to call Turnpike assistance and a flatbed Tow truck loaded up my car and it was taken to a dealership.”
• A Massachusetts driver whose 2021 Range Rover Sport lost power steering while driving home. “The car essentially died and power steering was lost. There were no prior warnings or indicators of an issue.”

The lawsuit identifies specific, quantifiable harms: Sumrell and other class members paid for vehicles they would not have purchased had they known the truth. They paid premium prices for luxury vehicles marketed as safe and reliable. They lost the opportunity to purchase competing vehicles from manufacturers who do not sell defective products. Their vehicles suffered diminution in value. And they were exposed to increased safety risks.

But the non-financial ledger runs deeper. These consumers trusted a globally recognized luxury brand. They relied on Land Rover’s five-star safety ratings, its 50 years of engineering expertise, its explicit warranties promising to cover defects in materials and workmanship. They believed the advertising. They believed the dealership. They believed the company would honor its obligations.

That trust was a lie.

One consumer, describing repeated failures and dealer indifference, wrote: “I am losing money every month. I really went to mental stress and harassment because of these incidents. My family was really scare sitting in the car what if it stop suddenly and someone hit from back because of sudden stop.”

Another: “I feel stress every time I drive car. Car only has 4000 mile, every month I am paying large lease amount, so I don’t drive, I am losing money every month.”

These are not damages you can price in a demand letter. These are injuries to human dignity. The loss of autonomy. The fear of driving your own car. The humiliation of being stranded in traffic while wealthier, better-informed Land Rover executives sit in boardrooms in Mahwah, New Jersey, calculating acceptable risk.

“I am not sure what they did but just politely communicate with me. They said that they fix the recall and do something. In car report which does not describe anything than regular inspection… They created CASE [number]. I complain to corporate range rover, I am not sure what they did but just politely communicate with me.” — Virginia consumer, August 2, 2021

LEGAL RECEIPTS: LAND ROVER’S OWN ADMISSIONS

The smoking gun in this case is Land Rover’s own Part 573 Safety Recall Report filed with NHTSA on April 17, 2026. The company admits:

“Following an increase in the number of warranty claims received for DCDC converter failure globally, JLR’s Product Safety and Compliance Committee (PSCC) reviewed the matter in September 2024.”

Land Rover’s internal documents confirm that the company received 5,952 claims and field reports involving replacement of the DC/DC converter in the U.S. between July 2019 and April 2026. The company knew the defect existed. It quantified the defect. It reviewed the defect at the committee level. And then it did nothing for 18 months.

In April 2026, after “reviews were held with a number of government agencies,” and after NHTSA made clear that “the Agency’s view of the matter [was] one of a safety nature rather than customer satisfaction,” Land Rover finally issued a recall. The company admits in its own filings that it only acted after regulators forced its hand.

The recall covers 170,169 vehicles. Land Rover estimates 100% of them have the defect.

And here is the punchline: The recall provides no remedy.

Land Rover’s April 17, 2026 filing states: “The remedy is not yet defined therefore this detail is not yet known.”

NHTSA’s recall campaign notice, also dated April 17, 2026, echoes this: “The remedy for this recall is currently under development. Additional letters will be sent once the remedy is available.”

On April 29, 2026, Land Rover issued Administration Bulletins to its retailers and authorized repairers, instructing them to “Quarantine affected new vehicles” and stating that “recall repair procedures and any required parts and/or software are not currently available.”

On June 10, 2026, Land Rover began sending interim “Important Safety Recall” notices to consumers. These letters tell owners: “The remedy for this recall is currently under development. When the repair process and any necessary parts or software are available you will receive a 2nd notification letter.”

As of the filing of this lawsuit on July 9, 2026, Land Rover has provided:

• No remedy
• No timeline for a remedy
• No compensation
• No replacement vehicles
• No refunds
• No communication beyond “we’re working on it”

Meanwhile, the company’s Administration Bulletins contain contradictory and Kafkaesque instructions to consumers. Land Rover states: “We have not issued a ‘stop-drive’ instruction in this case.” In the very next paragraph, the company advises: “We strongly recommend that you do have your car repaired, and there is a risk to your safety, and the safety of others, if you do not.”

The bulletin continues: “If you receive a red warning on your dashboard please note that the handbook states you must pull over as soon as it is safe to do so, and seek qualified assistance. If you receive a red warning and continue to drive, the resulting repair may be more time-consuming and invasive.”

Decoded: Keep driving your defective car. When it fails, pull over immediately. If you don’t pull over immediately, we might not fix it for free. Also, we can’t fix it yet because we haven’t developed a fix. But definitely keep driving.

SOCIETAL IMPACT MAPPING

Environmental Degradation

Land Rover marketed its MHEV technology as environmentally conscious. The company’s website touts “improved CO2 emissions and fuel economy,” positioning the 48-volt hybrid system as a step toward sustainability. The reality? These vehicles are now stranded in repair shops, generating electronic waste as defective converters are replaced (when parts are available). The defect undermines consumer confidence in hybrid technology and poisons the well for manufacturers genuinely committed to reducing emissions.

Public Health

Sudden loss of drive power on highways is not a theoretical risk. It is a public health crisis. When a vehicle loses motive power, exterior lighting, and power steering assistance at highway speeds, the risk of multi-vehicle collision increases exponentially. Drivers in following vehicles have seconds to react. Pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas face the risk of being struck by vehicles whose drivers have lost braking assistance. The defect also causes psychological harm: anxiety, stress, and the erosion of trust in one’s own vehicle.

Economic Inequality

This case illuminates the class dynamics of consumer protection law. Land Rover’s customer base is affluent. Many owners can afford extended warranties, replacement vehicles, or the luxury of waiting months for a repair. But the used car market tells a different story. Pre-owned Range Rovers and Defenders are purchased by middle-class families who stretch their budgets to afford a “luxury” vehicle. These are the buyers who cannot afford to park a $30,000 SUV while the manufacturer dithers. These are the buyers whose warranties are expiring while Land Rover’s engineering task force holds meetings. These are the buyers who get blamed by dealers for “not maintaining the vehicle properly” when the defect manifests.

Plaintiff Robert Sumrell paid $33,300 for his 2023 Range Rover Velar in May 2026. He is an individual consumer. He does not have a fleet of vehicles. He does not have a corporate legal department. He has a car that stops working while he is driving it, and a warranty that is running out while the manufacturer tells him to wait.

WHAT NOW? THE RESISTANCE BEGINS HERE

The lawsuit identifies the following defendants:

• Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC — Incorporated in Delaware, headquartered at 100 Jaguar Land Rover Way, Mahwah, New Jersey, 07495. Principal place of business in the District of New Jersey.
• Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC — Parent company, incorporated in the United Kingdom, headquartered in Whitley, Coventry. Sole member of the U.S. subsidiary.

The lawsuit seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle within the applicable statute of limitations.

Illinois Subclass: All persons in Illinois who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Illinois within the applicable statute of limitations.

The complaint alleges five causes of action:

1. Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J. Stat. § 56:8-1 et seq.)
2. Violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS §§ 505, et. seq.)
3. Violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS §§ 510/1, et. seq.)
4. Breach of Express Warranty
5. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Plaintiff seeks:

• Compensatory damages
• Restitution and disgorgement of profits
• Treble and punitive damages
• Injunctive relief (including a court order requiring Land Rover to provide a remedy, replacement vehicles, or refunds)
• Declaratory relief
• Attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert witness fees

Direct action is the most effective form of accountability. If you purchased a Class Vehicle and experienced the defect, document everything: repair invoices, tow receipts, communications with dealers, NHTSA complaint numbers, and any warnings or error messages displayed on your dashboard. Photograph or video record the warning lights if they appear. Keep a log of when the defect manifested, where you were, and what happened. This documentation will be critical if you join the class action or pursue individual arbitration.

Support consumer protection organizations that hold manufacturers accountable. Donate to legal aid clinics that assist low-income consumers in warranty disputes. Organize locally. If you live near a Land Rover dealership, consider informational picketing (check local laws regarding protest on private property). Share your story on social media using hashtags that connect you to other affected owners. Visibility is a weapon.

Most importantly: Do not let them wait you out. Corporations rely on the assumption that you will give up, that the hassle of pursuing a claim is not worth the reward, that your warranty will expire before you take action. They are wrong.