A Ram 1500 Lawsuit Alleges New Trucks Can Stall Without Warning

On July 30, 2026, Charlene Norberg was driving her 2025 Ram 1500 on a Wisconsin highway when the battery light came on, according to a proposed class-action complaint. The dashboard then warned that the engine was overheating. The truck entered reduced-power mode, its air conditioning stopped working, and Norberg pulled over. The complaint says the vehicle was hot, made a loud whirring noise and had to be towed.

The filing portrays that event as part of a larger control-system failure affecting model-year 2025 Ram 1500 trucks equipped with Stellantis’s 3.0-liter Hurricane engine. Plaintiffs allege the trucks can hesitate, misfire, stall or lose propulsion because of defective software, calibration, sensors or electronic modules.

Those are serious allegations, but they are not established findings. The filing does not include an engineering analysis proving a shared root cause, internal FCA records establishing pre-sale knowledge, or an adjudicated account of what happened in any reported incident.

Two owners describe failures that dealers struggled to explain

Norberg purchased her truck in Wisconsin in August 2024. The complaint says it stalled during remote starts in December 2024 and April 2025. An authorized dealer allegedly found nothing wrong and made no repair. The truck later returned twice for battery-drain concerns, and a drivetrain control module was replaced in May 2026. The highway event followed in July.

Tim Craig bought a 2025 Ram 1500 Rebel in Florida in May 2025. At approximately 1,200 miles, the complaint says, dashboard messages reported that the truck’s safety features were no longer active. An authorized dealership kept the vehicle for more than a month, performed testing and digital brake bleeds, then replaced the brake booster after it could not identify the problem.

Both plaintiffs claim they overpaid, lost vehicle value and incurred other economic damage. The filing says they would not have bought their trucks, or would have paid less, if FCA had disclosed the alleged defect. It does not allege that either named plaintiff suffered a physical injury or collision.

The alleged failure starts with the truck’s electronic brain

Modern engines are managed by computers. The engine control module and powertrain control module use sensor data to regulate fuel, ignition timing, turbocharger pressure, emissions and the interaction between the engine and transmission.

Plaintiffs allege that improper programming, calibration or integration can make the system generate fault codes, destabilize combustion or mishandle turbocharger control. According to their theory, the vehicle may then misfire, hesitate, enter limp mode or shut down.

The complaint says dealers have tried software updates, module reprogramming, sensor replacement and recalibration without permanently resolving some owners’ problems. That repair pattern is central to the plaintiffs’ case. It is also where the evidence remains incomplete: repeated service visits can document recurring symptoms, but they do not alone prove that every truck shares one design or calibration defect.

The filing assembles a broad pattern of consumer reports

The complaint reproduces 39 summaries submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The reports describe an array of symptoms involving engine misfires, blank displays, delayed acceleration, unexpected shifts, stalling, brake concerns and total electronic shutdowns.

Several accounts describe trucks becoming disabled in traffic or losing propulsion while moving. Others describe warning lights and repeated dealership visits without a lasting repair. One report, identified in the filing as NHTSA complaint 11712524, begins with a blunt description:

A NHTSA complaint is not a verified technical conclusion. It records what a consumer reported. The reports can help identify patterns worth investigating, but they do not prove that the incidents share a cause, that every account is accurate or that the manufacturer violated the law.

• Warning and misfire reports: Owners described check-engine lights, diagnostic code P0300 and rough running.
• Loss-of-power reports: Some consumers described hesitation, delayed acceleration, limp mode or shutdowns in traffic.
• Control and electrical reports: Accounts included blank instrument panels, unwanted shifts into Park and unavailable vehicle systems.
• Repair-cycle reports: Several consumers described multiple dealership visits, software updates or component replacement without a permanent resolution.

The complaint’s evidence has important limits

The distinction involving the 2022 vehicles is especially important. The complaint says more than 100 reports concerned 2022 Ram 1500 trucks and that NHTSA opened an investigation into shutdown issues involving 2022 Stellantis vehicles. Plaintiffs then allege, on information and belief, that the 2025 trucks use substantially similar software.

The supplied filing does not include a software comparison, engineering record or agency finding connecting the earlier investigation to the alleged 2025 defect. Similar symptoms can support further scrutiny, but symptoms alone do not establish identical technical causes.

Plaintiffs say FCA knew. The filing does not yet show how much it knew

The complaint alleges FCA knew or should have known through pre-production testing, warranty claims, dealer records, fault-code analysis, customer complaints and internal quality tracking. It also argues that failures occurring at low mileage support an inference that the condition existed when the trucks were produced.

Those claims will require evidence beyond their appearance in a pleading. The supplied record does not contain internal emails, test results, warranty databases or engineering analyses showing when FCA identified a common defect. Public complaints may contribute to notice after they appear, but they do not automatically establish what the company knew before each vehicle was sold.

The complaint contrasts the alleged failures with FCA marketing that called the 2025 model the “[m]ost technologically advanced RAM 1500 ever” and promoted the Hurricane engine as delivering high power, improved efficiency and reduced emissions. Marketing claims create the story’s sharpest tension, but they do not by themselves prove concealment.

FCA’s defense is not in the supplied record

The complaint alleges FCA failed to disclose the problem, did not provide an adequate repair and had not recalled the proposed class vehicles. It also reproduces statements that consumers attributed to dealership personnel. Those dealer accounts are embedded in consumer reports and are not an official FCA response.

The supplied material contains no answer from FCA addressing the alleged defect. It therefore does not show whether the company disputes the plaintiffs’ technical theory, challenges which trucks belong in the proposed class, attributes the incidents to different causes or identifies repairs not discussed in the complaint.

FCA’s absence from this record should not be mistaken for an admission. The allegations remain contested unless admitted or established through evidence and a court ruling.

What the lawsuit seeks, and what has not happened

The plaintiffs propose a nationwide class of current and former owners or lessees of the affected vehicles, with Wisconsin and Florida classes offered as alternatives. No class-certification decision appears in the supplied record.

The complaint pleads claims under Wisconsin and Florida consumer-protection laws, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs ask the court for remedies including:

• Repair, recall or replacement of the proposed class vehicles.
• An extension of applicable warranties.
• Notice to owners about the alleged defect and its cause.
• Damages for overpayment, diminished value and out-of-pocket losses.
• Restitution, fees, interest and other available relief.

These are requests, not remedies the court has granted. The complaint is the beginning of an adversarial process, not its conclusion.

The filing’s strongest evidence is the repeated shape of the reports: new trucks, warning lights or unstable performance, service visits, and symptoms that allegedly return. Its largest gap is proof that one defect connects them all. Whether that gap closes will determine if this case documents a systemic failure or an unproven theory built from a troubling collection of incidents.