Farmers and the Broken Trust in John Deere’s “Dependable’” Machinery | Deere & Company

1. INTRODUCTION

At the heart of an alarming class action complaint filed against Deere & Company (hereafter “John Deere”) is the claim that the multinational corporation sold nearly 148,000 compact utility tractors with a critical brake defect. According to the allegations laid out in the legal filing, these machines—namely the 1023E, 1025R, and 2025R models produced from November 2017 to July 2024—feature a serious front bell crank flaw that threatens to render the tractors’ braking system useless. With just one faulty part in the brake linkage, the complaint argues, any unsuspecting user could lose all braking capability, thus risking crashes, injuries, or worse.

What makes these allegations so fucked is not merely the presence of a defect, but what the lawsuit contends is a deeper corporate strategy of profit maximization paired with insufficient disclosure or remedy. The complaint states that the brake system defect was introduced into the marketplace despite John Deere’s legal and ethical duty to ensure each tractor was safe, free of known defects, and accompanied by an effective warranty. Even when John Deere announced a recall in September 2024—after tens of thousands of people had already purchased the machines—the complaint alleges that the company offered an uncertain, potentially inadequate fix that forced owners to travel great distances (or wait indeterminately for an on-site repair) to have the defective part replaced.

Viewed in a broader context of neoliberal capitalism, the allegations bring to mind how some large corporations, incentivized by the relentless pursuit of profits, may sidestep or minimize potential hazards until problems become widespread or the threat of litigation looms. In this environment, critics say, corporations can be emboldened by deregulation or regulatory capture—terms that describe how oversight bodies, starved of resources or entwined with industry, often fail to intervene swiftly or meaningfully. This dynamic can perpetuate a cycle in which the public interest is diminished to a mere afterthought, overshadowed by corporate prerogatives such as shareholder value or brand expansion.

As alleged in the class action complaint filed by plaintiff and tractor owner Leroy Workman, John Deere’s approach to the brake linkage defect serves as a real-world example of how structural and systemic issues—corporate greed, corporate corruption, lack of corporate social responsibility, and an overarching push to cut corners—can ultimately shift the burden of risk onto ordinary consumers. Farmers, small landowners, and individuals who rely on these compact utility tractors for daily tasks allegedly found themselves with a piece of equipment that might fail catastrophically under normal use.

This eight-part investigative article aims to provide a detailed, coherent narrative of the allegations’ significance: not just enumerating the specifics of the brake system problem, but also explaining how John Deere’s alleged tactics fit into a recognizable corporate pattern. We will explore the interplay between profit incentives, the economic fallout for tractor owners, the alleged “do-little-too-late” posture of regulators, and the sophisticated PR playbook often deployed to quell public alarm. Throughout, we will maintain empathy for the communities—often already contending with the wealth disparity that shapes rural economies—who can ill afford another financial or safety crisis. And while John Deere’s public statements around the recall are not included in the complaint, we will discuss the typical steps corporations take in similar scenarios: from using carefully worded disclaimers to controlling the narrative in ways that, by design, minimize admissions of wrongdoing.

Ultimately, the facts alleged in the complaint raise a stark question about corporate accountability: When a company repeatedly sells a product with an apparent structural danger, is that a bug in the system or an essential feature of how business is done under a profit-driven model? For owners of the affected tractors, there is no “philosophical” debate. Their safety concerns, lost time, diminished resale values, towing fees, and near-term usage disruptions are entirely real. This tension between real-world harm and high-level corporate choices sets the stage for a broader conversation about the dangers corporations can pose to public health and the environment of impunity that too often surrounds them in an era of minimalist oversight.

The complaint underscores that, in an ideal world, major manufacturers would stand behind their warranties, swiftly fix mistakes, or refund consumers for the inconvenience. Yet, as we will see, the legal filing insists that the brake defect was discovered too late, communicated too slowly, and ultimately corrected too superficially. Those patterns, claim the plaintiffs, are symptoms of a deeper malaise in modern capitalism—where the imperative of shareholder returns can overshadow the public interest, especially for large industrial enterprises that supply essential machinery.

This article is structured in eight sections to mirror the key lines of inquiry relevant to the lawsuit and to the broader debate about corporate ethics, consumer safety, and the pursuit of social justice. We begin with a direct look at the complaint’s allegations and the moral questions they raise. Then, we transition to how the corporation’s priorities, as depicted in the lawsuit, may have driven decisions around quality control and safety warnings. Next, we examine how such practices fit into an established playbook used by big companies to reduce liability exposure. We also focus on the impacts to communities, the systemic failures that let these problems persist, and how John Deere may frame its narrative for the public in a modern media environment. In conclusion, we tackle the question of whether the public interest can truly prevail against corporate power in a context that so often rewards risk and punishes caution.

---

2. CORPORATE INTENT EXPOSED

At the center of the class action complaint is the idea that John Deere’s alleged misconduct stems from corporate decisions—what the lawsuit portrays as “intent” in the sense that the company knew or should have known about the brake defect yet continued with its sales strategy. While many might wonder if a defect could be an honest mistake, the complaint sketches a scenario wherein executives, engineers, and marketing teams were presumably aligned on the success of these compact utility tractors without adequately addressing the glaring safety risk.

The Factual Core of the Allegations

From November 2017 through July 2024, John Deere sold a specific set of tractors (the 1023E, 1025R, and 2025R models) that allegedly contained a front bell crank design prone to failure, thus compromising the tractor’s braking capability. According to the filing, these tractors were marketed to farmers, ranchers, hobbyists, and everyday landowners seeking a trustworthy workhorse for chores ranging from hauling hay to landscaping.

John Deere is no newcomer to farm equipment. The brand has cultivated a storied reputation for reliability, so the presence of a potential brake defect in such a large quantity of tractors—148,000 units by the company’s own recall notice—would ring alarm bells among industry observers. The lawsuit focuses on the suspicion that the defect was not an unforeseen glitch but rather a consequence of cost-saving design and manufacturing choices.

Alleged Failures of Disclosure

Under product liability norms and consumer protection laws, manufacturers are obligated to disclose known defects that affect product safety. Indeed, the complaint argues that once the alleged brake defect was discovered, John Deere had an immediate duty to stop selling the defective tractors or at least provide explicit notice to prospective and existing customers. Instead, the complaint alleges that John Deere continued to market these models with no mention of the brake linkage hazard.

This alleged decision to keep silent—at least until the 2024 recall—sits uncomfortably alongside typical notions of corporate social responsibility. The complaint calls it an “affirmative misrepresentation by omission,” referencing how the existence of a brake failure hazard would have influenced consumer purchase decisions. Had the public known the braking system might fail under ordinary conditions, owners might have forgone these tractors entirely or demanded additional warranty protections.

Where Intent Intersects Profit Maximization

Corporate boards operate under near-constant shareholder pressure to hit quarterly targets, ramp up production, and reduce costs. In such an environment, R&D departments can experience a tug-of-war between robust (and costly) testing and the push to bring new models to market quickly. The complaint implies that John Deere’s choices, intentionally or not, appear to reflect a cost-benefit calculation: the risk of a defect might be balanced against the profits of continuing production.

While the lawsuit does not offer an internal memo or direct quote attributing a “smoking gun” statement of “we know this is defective but proceed,” it does suggest that John Deere’s persistent use of the same or similar brake linkage design—despite alleged failures—portrays a corporate culture of willful ignorance or an attempt to minimize short-term losses. Under corporate corruption paradigms, such alleged conduct can be read as the fruit of a system that systematically places investor returns above thorough consumer safety checks.

Consequences for Tractor Owners

For many owners, the complaint states, the “intentional” nature of John Deere’s actions is evidenced by the significant time and money spent dealing with the aftermath of the defect. Even though John Deere has offered a “free fix,” the complaint points out that hauling a tractor to a dealership or waiting indefinitely for an on-site technician imposes significant costs—particularly for farmers whose livelihood depends on daily tractor usage. Some might have had to hire alternative equipment during the repair period, further compounding losses.

Once a tractor becomes associated with a widely publicized safety defect, its resale value plunges. According to the complaint, John Deere failed to consider how this intangible but real cost would saddle unsuspecting buyers. This disregard for the user community’s well-being underscores how corporate decisions—especially in a context of limited accountability—can shape everyday realities for rural families or small business owners.

Indifference or Deliberate Strategy?

Though no direct internal communications are cited in the complaint to prove malicious forethought, the lawsuit frames the alleged defect and subsequent recall as evidence of something beyond a mere oversight. The complaint demands that a jury consider whether John Deere violated “various duties” owed to the consumer: the duty to provide a defect-free product, the duty to stand by warranties, and the duty to disclose known faults. By portraying John Deere’s conduct as a form of strategic nondisclosure or half-measure remedy, the complaint invites a conversation about the broader phenomenon of corporate greed: that the pursuit of margin can, if unchecked, override moral or social obligations.

Why It Matters
At a fundamental level, the notion of “corporate intent” matters because it distinguishes true accidents from choices driven by profit and brand calculations. In the complaint’s telling, John Deere’s high-level intent was to gain market share in the compact utility tractor segment without incurring the cost or reputational hit of a widespread fix. By continuing to sell the alleged defective machines, John Deere might have saved itself from an immediate recall, even though it presumably risked the well-being of thousands of customers. Whether the legal system ultimately finds John Deere liable or not, the allegations exemplify recurring tensions under neoliberal capitalism: the conflict between safe, transparent business practices and the unrelenting push for cost-efficiency that can lead corporations to cut corners or bury inconvenient truths.

As we move to the next section, we will examine how companies facing potential liability often use a corporate playbook of public relations, behind-the-scenes lobbying, and delayed acknowledgments to minimize legal consequences and protect their bottom line. From the allegations in this complaint, observers can glean the broad strokes of this well-honed approach: disclaim knowledge, issue a recall only when forced, and frame the fix as “simple” or “free” to keep consumer trust from fully eroding. For tractor owners left with unsafe vehicles, however, the complaint suggests the damage was already done long before the recall.

---

3. THE CORPORATE PLAYBOOK / HOW THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT

Allegations that a global brand like John Deere knowingly sold thousands of defective tractors beg the question: How did it manage to do so without immediate public uproar or regulatory intervention? The complaint itself, of course, does not purport to have a hidden trove of corporate emails or inside whistleblowers detailing the precise steps. Instead, it points to patterns that are recognizable to anyone familiar with big corporate PR: a cyclical method of ignoring or downplaying complaints, issuing mild disclaimers, and ultimately adopting a carefully stage-managed recall when the risk of legal blowback becomes too big to ignore.

Step One: Downplaying Early Warning Signs

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in cases like this typically argue that an uptick in warranty complaints or dealer service calls should have alerted corporate leaders to a structural issue in the brake linkage. The complaint here posits that John Deere “knew or should have known” about the defect well before the official recall because the company presumably monitors repair data, consumer feedback, and part-failure rates. According to the suit, the front bell crank’s vulnerability would not suddenly manifest in 2024—it would presumably have shown signs of weakness in the years leading up to the recall.

Yet corporations that follow the well-known “playbook” might systematically dismiss such red flags as isolated incidents. Only when repeated failures are aggregated into a pattern (often through lawsuits, insurance claims, or mounting evidence from dealers) does corporate leadership consider the possibility of a widespread defect. If this complaint is proven, it suggests John Deere may have ignored or minimized these signals, employing corporate tactics that effectively kick the can down the road.

Step Two: Delayed or Incomplete Disclosures

Once a company senses a more systemic defect, the next stage in the “how they got away with it” blueprint is to control messaging. As the complaint points out, John Deere didn’t appear to make robust efforts to inform the public. Even after discovering the brake system flaw, the complaint alleges that John Deere’s solution was not to immediately halt sales of the defective machines or publicly disclose the nature of the hazard. Instead, according to the legal action, the company continued selling the same product or replaced defective parts with similarly flawed ones—an assertion that forms a central plank of the lawsuit.

The complaint also criticizes the official recall notice for coming in September 2024, well after tens of thousands of owners had grown dependent on these tractors. Delayed disclosure can be advantageous to a corporation’s financial bottom line—new sales keep rolling in, existing inventory is cleared, and recall costs are postponed. For John Deere’s part, if the allegations hold, the strategy effectively passed the burden of risk on to the consumer, who was none the wiser about the potential brake failure.

Step Three: The Minimalist Recall

According to the complaint, John Deere’s recall underscores another tactic: the “minimalist fix.” The company offered to replace the front bell crank at a certified dealership (or, if owners cannot transport their tractors, possibly send out a mechanic). On paper, a free replacement might seem like a robust response. However, the complaint highlights real-world impediments: owners must use their time (and sometimes money) to transport these bulky tractors or wait for uncertain scheduling. The lawsuit questions whether the fix truly addresses the underlying cause of the defect or just substitutes a similarly vulnerable part.

In this sense, the lawsuit contends that the recall might be more about limiting liability than fully remedying the hazard. The brand can claim it “did the right thing,” while the real burden of proving the recall’s adequacy often lands on the consumer. If the complaint’s claims about ongoing brake hazards are accurate, it would illustrate how a minimalist recall can be more a matter of corporate image management than genuine hazard remediation.

Step Four: Utilizing Legal and Regulatory Gaps

Another typical part of the corporate playbook is leveraging a complex and sometimes underfunded regulatory environment to avoid or delay scrutiny. Under the complaint’s arguments, John Deere appears to have benefited from an environment in which robust oversight either came too late or was too limited in scope. While the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) eventually participated in the recall announcement, it did so only after thousands of tractors were in the hands of unsuspecting consumers.

In many industries—from automobile manufacturing to agricultural machinery—regulatory capture or simple understaffing can mean that potential hazards slip through. Manufacturers conduct self-tests, produce internal reports, and are often the exclusive repository of data on part performance. Regulators might lack the resources to conduct extensive, independent product safety research. The complaint’s narrative underscores how, under neoliberal capitalism, the onus often falls on the public (or class action litigators) to raise the alarm.

Step Five: PR Spin and Controlling the Narrative

Although the complaint does not quote direct press releases or statements from John Deere, it points to the typical corporate practice of carefully crafting recall announcements. “The fix is free,” “only a small number of machines might be affected,” and “we take safety seriously”—these are phrases that could easily appear in a standard recall script. The suit challenges the completeness of John Deere’s admissions, suggesting that the corporate line can be used to frame the issue as minor or swiftly resolvable.

Any acknowledgment of wrongdoing is often couched in disclaimers that avoid the suggestion of liability. By steering the conversation toward the brand’s willingness to address concerns, John Deere might aim to protect brand loyalty. Tractor owners are a unique market segment, often brand-loyal across generations. A well-crafted PR message might thus reduce backlash and keep future sales stable, even in the wake of a serious defect.

How Did They “Get Away” With It?

At one level, the complaint implies they “got away with it” because no catastrophic, front-page incidents forced immediate public outcry. While it is possible that near-misses or minor accidents did happen, the lawsuit does not detail large-scale tragedies. Without a shocking scandal that garners national headlines, a corporation can plausibly manage the story behind closed doors for years.

Moreover, the structure of modern capitalism is such that companies can settle smaller claims quietly, rely on arbitration clauses, or litigate vigorously to deter lawsuits. Class actions like this one are among the few instruments left for ordinary citizens to challenge alleged systemic negligence. Whether the plaintiff’s claims will be proven in court remains to be seen, but the complaint underscores that John Deere presumably had ample resources to handle these issues quietly until faced with an imminent legal threat.

A Common Pattern in Corporate Misconduct
Similar allegations have surfaced against big players in industries as varied as pharmaceuticals, automotive, tech, and chemical manufacturing. In each scenario, the “corporate playbook” typically hinges on these pillars:

1. Minimize or conceal the nature of the defect.
2. Delay formal disclosure or stall a recall.
3. Issue a limited fix that might or might not fully solve the problem.
4. Deploy sophisticated PR strategies to control the narrative.
5. Take advantage of weak regulatory oversight or drawn-out legal battles.

For the everyday consumer—particularly someone whose livelihood depends on farm equipment—the stakes couldn’t be higher. Corporations’ dangers to public health and safety often manifest in ways that are invisible until the worst happens: a brake failure on a slope, an inability to stop in time around livestock or near busy roads, or a hidden design flaw that leads to property damage. That is precisely why the plaintiffs in this case have pinned responsibility on John Deere’s corporate decisions, insisting that the brand had countless opportunities to protect the public by halting sales, changing the part, or issuing an unambiguous warning.

In the upcoming section, we’ll scrutinize the corporate profit equation that may have shaped John Deere’s alleged decision-making. The lens of profit provides a powerful explanation for how a widely respected company—if the complaint is correct—might opt to risk a defective product’s release, delay a recall, and then offer a fix that does not entirely quell safety fears. Ultimately, this highlights the broader moral conflict at the core of corporate ethics: how do we strike a balance between business success and the duty to ensure public welfare?

---

4. THE CORPORATE PROFIT EQUATION

One of the more unsettling aspects of the allegations against John Deere is the implication that the company’s decisions can be understood by looking at a profit calculus. While no corporate executive ever wants to be perceived as callous regarding public safety, the reality under neoliberal capitalism is that businesses often weigh the costs of a recall or redesign against the potential benefits of forging ahead. If the complaint’s claims hold water, John Deere’s reluctance to take immediate, transparent action about the brake defect suggests a classic scenario where continuing to sell defective machines may have seemed, at least in the short term, more profitable than abruptly halting production.

Efficiency vs. Safety: A Perpetual Tension

In the farm machinery industry, efficiency is paramount. Efficiency in design, manufacturing, and distribution can yield competitive pricing that boosts market share. However, the lawsuit highlights the tension between cost-saving design choices and the imperative of delivering a product free from dangerous defects. Even small design changes—like using a more durable metal in the brake linkage or incorporating an additional safety mechanism—carry incremental costs that can translate into higher retail prices.

John Deere’s brand identity rests on a reputation for quality, but it also competes aggressively with other tractor manufacturers. Under the pressure to post strong quarterly earnings, an extra few million dollars for additional testing or re-engineering might be viewed skeptically by a board or a cost-analysis committee. The complaint’s main premise is that the result of these financial pressures was a product that, from a purely mechanical standpoint, would eventually fail for certain owners, generating expensive consequences for them while John Deere had already banked the sale.

Internal Calculations: The “Cost of Doing Business”

Some large corporations in the automotive or equipment sectors have historically used “cost-benefit” analyses to weigh the expense of a major recall against potential legal settlements. Although the complaint does not provide direct evidence of such a calculation at John Deere, it strongly implies that something akin to it took place. If the fix can be managed cheaply and quietly after a certain threshold of consumer complaints, and if catastrophic events remain limited, the short-term gains might justify the risk.

This logic is intimately tied to corporate corruption and a system in which externalities—the negative effects on consumers—are not always accounted for in corporate decision-making. The lawsuit claims that tens of thousands of owners unwittingly assumed the hazard. Their economic fallout includes not only lost time and the cost of repairs or towing fees but also the intangible anxiety of using a potentially flawed machine on which their livelihood might depend. Meanwhile, the brand reaps the revenues from each sale.

Alleged Warranty Breaches and the Bottom Line

The complaint also identifies the warranty process as a point of friction. Under both implied and explicit warranties, consumers expect that a tractor they purchase will be safe for normal use. From an accounting standpoint, however, robust warranties can become a financial liability for manufacturers if a major defect emerges. Companies must factor in the cost of servicing, parts replacement, and potential litigation. By allegedly failing to honor these warranty obligations promptly and effectively, the complaint argues, John Deere may have kept warranty-related expenses artificially low.

For instance, if owners with brake issues initially turned to dealerships for help, the complaint hints that these owners may have been told that repairs were out-of-warranty or billed for labor that should have been covered. The cost to John Deere might have been minimal, especially compared to a sweeping recall that might have been mandated had the brand promptly acknowledged a systematic problem.

Globalization and Supply Chain Dynamics

In a global supply chain, John Deere designs and manufactures its tractors across multiple facilities, some potentially located in regions with cheaper labor or less rigorous oversight. Under a neoliberal economic model, corporations are free to pursue these efficiencies, which can drive down production costs—and, ironically, might also reduce the impetus to invest in more robust safety checks. The lawsuit seems to suggest that the brake system’s design or manufacturing flaw could be the result of cost-saving measures in materials or processes. If so, the pursuit of cheaper parts or less time-consuming assembly might have overshadowed the risk that one crucial piece in the brake linkage could fail catastrophically.

When Market Forces Fail to Correct

In a functioning market an obvious safety defect would quickly come to light: negative word-of-mouth would spread, sales would plummet, and the brand would be compelled to fix the problem. But the complaint underscores a dynamic where the potential for quick diffusion of bad news is stymied by corporate silence or by the slow, sporadic realization among consumers that their brake system might be compromised. The problem, in other words, is not always discovered in time. Small farmers or homeowners may chalk up initial brake issues to user error or sporadic mechanical trouble, unaware of a systemic flaw.

From the viewpoint of wealth disparity, the burden can be particularly acute for smaller landowners. While a wealthy agribusiness could more easily replace or repair defective equipment, an individual with a single tractor has far less room to absorb downtime or additional costs. As a result, the lawsuit frames this as not just a legal dispute but also a look into how corporate greed can exacerbate social inequalities: the negative consequences fall disproportionately on individuals with fewer resources to bounce back from corporate-made errors.

The Broader Economic Impact on Communities

A defective product from a major manufacturer can reverberate through entire local economies. Equipment breakdowns can hamper productivity, especially in rural communities that are already under strain. The complaint points out that thousands of hours and dollars are lost when tractor owners try to get the “free fix.” This can trickle down to lost agricultural yield, slowed local commerce, and stress among consumers. If the recall does not fully resolve the underlying brake defect, as the complaint suggests, owners may face repeated service appointments or eventually have to purchase a replacement.

The ripple effects highlight how corporations’ dangers to public health extend beyond physical injuries or accidents. There is also the economic instability wrought by a major piece of farm machinery failing. In an era of rising input costs, uncertain commodity prices, and creeping consolidation in the agricultural sector, the last thing many families need is an expensive fiasco with critical equipment. The lawsuit contends that John Deere’s decisions, whether or not they were intentionally malicious, set the stage for exactly that scenario, signifying how large companies can impose public risks in the name of private gain.

Corporate Accountability Under Profit Pressures

This case underscores the uneasy fit between corporate accountability and the profit motive. Under the legal structure in most developed economies, corporations are mandated to prioritize their financial obligations to shareholders. While it is entirely possible to operate a profitable enterprise with corporate ethics, the complaint’s allegations highlight how short-term incentives can override these ideals. When corners are cut, and lethal or dangerous defects slip through, a brand’s cherished public image can insulate it just enough to avoid immediate repercussions.

The real question is whether those repercussions catch up with a company through market pressure, government enforcement, or civil litigation. The complaint aims to impose precisely that accountability by seeking damages and injunctive relief for what it claims is an inherent design flaw that has not been adequately fixed. If the lawsuit succeeds, it might signal to other manufacturers that ignoring or downplaying defects can become an expensive gamble. Yet critics point out that the sums awarded in such cases, though they might reach millions of dollars, often pale in comparison to corporate revenues. In other words, big business may still treat these costs as a manageable line item, perpetuating a cycle in which corporate greed outruns meaningful repercussions.

This sets the stage for the next section, which explores the regulatory environment that allegedly did little to intervene. The complaint indirectly alludes to the fact that regulators only stepped in to publicize the recall in late 2024. Could more robust oversight from agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission have compelled an earlier fix, saving consumers time and money and preventing potential accidents? And if so, why did that not happen?

---

5. SYSTEM FAILURE / WHY REGULATORS DID NOTHING

A recurring theme in the class action complaint is the sense that consumers, who relied on John Deere’s reputation, had little recourse but to trust that the tractors they were buying would function as advertised. Regulatory agencies at both state and federal levels are ostensibly designed to serve as a safety net, ensuring that when corporate transparency fails, an outside authority steps in to protect the public. Yet, from the vantage point of the plaintiffs, this safety net appears to have been either absent or far too slow in the case of the brake defect. The question, then, is: Why did regulators not act sooner?

The Regulatory Architecture—and Its Limitations

Entities like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are tasked with safeguarding the public from unsafe products. They rely on a mix of manufacturer self-reporting, consumer complaints, and independent investigations to identify hazards. However, the complaint implies that regulators depend heavily on data provided by the manufacturers themselves. If John Deere framed early brake failures as sporadic or isolated, or simply did not report them, the CPSC would have difficulty connecting the dots.

Under neoliberal capitalism, a prevalent ideology holds that market forces are often the most efficient arbiters of quality and safety. Consequently, regulatory bodies have sometimes seen their budgets slashed or their authority weakened. The lawsuit suggests that John Deere may have been able to exploit these weakened structures by continuing to produce and sell the affected tractors for nearly seven years before the recall. While we do not have direct confirmation that the CPSC was understaffed or under-resourced, the legal complaint strongly hints at a pattern of regulators only stepping in with full force once the problem had reached a critical mass.

Regulatory Capture: A Systemic Problem

The concept of regulatory capture—wherein agencies meant to police an industry end up influenced or dominated by the interests of the very businesses they oversee—looms large in debates about corporate oversight. Although there is no specific allegation in the complaint that John Deere “captured” the CPSC or any other authority, the broader pattern in many industries is that corporate lobbying and financial clout can shape legislation, reduce oversight, or garner lenient enforcement actions.

When companies like John Deere maintain robust lobbying arms, they can push for regulations that favor industry, such as less stringent reporting requirements or more generous timetables for implementing recalls. All of this can hamper a regulator’s ability to act decisively in the face of emerging consumer complaints.

The Recall Announcement—A Reactive Step

By late September 2024, John Deere had apparently launched its recall. This timing, as alleged by the complaint, came long after the company had sold tens of thousands of units, leaving owners with potentially defective brakes. While the CPSC typically coordinates with manufacturers to issue a public recall announcement, it often does so at the manufacturer’s initiative or after receiving a significant volume of complaints. According to the complaint, the fact that John Deere was seemingly able to time the recall in ways that suited its own interests exemplifies how a “late-to-the-party” approach by the regulator left many consumers at risk for far longer than necessary.

Limited Accountability Measures

When major recalls unfold in other sectors—think automotive emissions scandals or large-scale contaminated food recalls—the threat of punitive fines or strict regulatory penalties can be a powerful incentive for companies to self-report or fix issues early. The complaint’s narrative in this lawsuit indicates that John Deere might have felt confident that the worst it would face, if a defect were confirmed, was the cost of a recall and potential civil litigation. In other words, absent the threat of a crippling legal penalty, an executive team might weigh the status quo as less damaging to the bottom line than halting sales or redesigning the brake system from the ground up.

Furthermore, deregulation has been a hallmark of the neoliberal era in various industries. Deregulation can manifest in the lowering of mandatory safety testing standards, the reliance on voluntary corporate compliance, and the elimination of certain checks and balances that once required more robust oversight. In this environment, the impetus is on the corporation to self-police or on consumers to uncover systemic defects and undertake lawsuits.

The Role of Consumer Complaints and Class Actions

A sobering detail is that the complaint rests heavily on the notion that John Deere owners often discovered the brake failure only through actual usage, and by then, they were left scrambling for repairs. The fact that it took a class action to bring these issues to broad public attention illustrates the final line of defense in consumer protection: the courts. A class action can consolidate hundreds or thousands of smaller claims to demonstrate the systemic nature of a defect, pressuring the defendant to provide restitution or adopt deeper reforms than a mere recall.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ argument is that relying on private lawsuits is a poor substitute for timely regulatory action. By the time class actions gain traction, the damage is often done. Consumers have spent money on repairs or replacements and risked accidents. The cost of mounting a legal challenge—while not borne by consumers upfront in many class actions—still represents a massive investment of time and resources that might have been saved had regulators stepped in earlier.

Implications for Public Health and Safety

In some industries, defective products—like faulty car airbags or contaminated pharmaceuticals—can have immediate, visible health consequences. In the realm of agricultural machinery, the dangers might be less dramatic but no less significant. A tractor that fails to brake on a slope can tip over, injure operators, destroy property, or even cause fatalities. Beyond that direct physical risk, the economic fallout from having a crucial piece of equipment out of commission can jeopardize a family farm or small business.

Corporations’ dangers to public health can thus take multiple forms: physical injuries from accidents and the mental, emotional, and financial stress inflicted upon communities. When regulators fail to intervene promptly, these hazards linger. The lawsuit, by zeroing in on the timeline, suggests that a more proactive regulator might have uncovered the brake system defect soon after the first wave of complaints, thereby curtailing the scope of harm.

Systemic Effects of Weak Enforcement

Taken together, the complaint’s description of events reveals a systemic issue in which big manufacturers can thrive under a regime of partial or delayed enforcement. Even if regulators do eventually mandate a recall, it can be done in a manner that is relatively convenient for the corporation. The moral hazard is clear: if the only real consequence of ignoring or downplaying a defect for years is a delayed recall plus potential civil litigation—whose settlement or judgment might be factored into the cost of production—then the impetus for immediate, transparent safety disclosures weakens.

The end result is what critics call a “race to the bottom,” where corporate accountability is not robustly enforced, emboldening other companies to behave similarly. In a sense, the complaint’s overarching theme is that John Deere’s alleged actions could be symptomatic of broader institutional failures that let large multinational corporations skirt the full responsibility for design flaws.

Concluding Thoughts on Regulatory Inaction

Whether it was ignorance, underfunding, or the inherent limitations of a self-regulatory model, the fact remains that for nearly seven years, tens of thousands of John Deere tractors with an allegedly hazardous brake defect were sold with minimal intervention from outside authorities. By the time the recall was issued, the lawsuit contends, owners were left to grapple with complicated repair logistics, uncertain safety outcomes, and a precipitous drop in resale value.

As we shift into the next section—**“This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug”—**we’ll explore how the lawsuit’s portrayal of John Deere’s actions parallels broader critiques of multinational corporations in a neoliberal world order. We’ll look at how the allegations of systematic oversight failures and opportunistic corporate behavior might reflect a typical “predatory” business model that sees compliance or risk management as mere line items to be optimized, rather than as ethical imperatives.

---

6. THIS PATTERN OF PREDATION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG

“Is it a bug, or is it a feature?” In software engineering, that question often applies to quirky functionalities that some might see as flaws while others argue they serve a purpose. The lawsuit against John Deere invites a parallel interrogation: Is the alleged sale of defective tractors followed by a lukewarm recall simply a lapse in judgment, or is it representative of a broader predatory corporate strategy? The complaint does not use the word “predatory” lightly. Yet the pattern it paints—of concealed defects, delayed recall, and ambiguous warranty coverage—resembles a structural approach to profit-making rather than an unfortunate one-off event.

What Makes It Predatory?

First, the complaint underscores how deeply reliant farmers, property owners, and horticultural businesses are on their tractors. Tractor use spans every season, from plowing fields to hauling materials, and downtime can be devastating. The brand’s marketing, according to the complaint, positioned the 1023E, 1025R, and 2025R as dependable, user-friendly machines—perfectly suited for small to mid-scale operations. If the alleged brake defect was known within John Deere’s engineering or warranty departments and yet the product kept shipping, that would indeed look like a predatory move—consumers invest in the brand’s promise, only to discover hidden hazards once they’ve already committed financially.

The Recurring Theme of “Calculated Risk”

The notion that large corporations factor in the risk of litigation or recall into their operational costs is not new. In the grand tapestry of neoliberal capitalism, several well-documented cases—like the infamous Pinto gas-tank design fiasco of decades past—show that corporations at times weigh potential lawsuits against the expense of a large-scale fix. While the John Deere situation deals with brake links rather than fuel tanks, the underlying principle could be the same: if the immediate cost of redesigning or halting production outweighs the probability of major lawsuits or government crackdowns, the path of least resistance might be to keep selling.

If proven true, such logic underscores how wealth disparity and information asymmetry put consumers at a disadvantage. John Deere’s resources allow it to handle extended litigation, to coordinate a recall on its own timetable, and to mitigate negative press through sophisticated PR. A typical tractor owner, especially in rural or underserved areas, has neither the time nor the capital to wage a protracted legal battle.

Ties to Structural Inequities

Under a system that critics label “neoliberal,” the impetus for corporations to prioritize social welfare is often overshadowed by the impetus to maximize earnings. This dynamic can be especially severe in sectors where end-users lack immediate recourse. One might consider a small-scale farmer who finances a new John Deere tractor through a local bank or dealership. Having taken on debt to buy the machine, they cannot easily exit the deal once a defect emerges, especially if the timing of the recall is late. This structural lock-in can create a form of dependency wherein the buyer has little choice but to follow John Deere’s timeline for fixing the defect.

Historical Parallels

While the complaint does not explicitly mention parallels, the scenario is reminiscent of how corporations have managed product defects in the auto and tech industries. In many such examples, a pattern emerges:

1. Initial Denial: Companies claim or imply there’s no systemic issue.
2. Incremental Disclosure: As more consumer complaints become public, the company makes carefully worded announcements.
3. Partial Resolution: A recall or update that addresses immediate concerns but may not fix deeper structural flaws.
4. Settlement or Litigation: Class actions or regulatory fines that, in some cases, lead to compensation but rarely exceed total profits made.

Each step can happen under the watchful eye of corporate lawyers and marketing strategists who aim to ensure that admissions of fault are minimal. This results in brand damage control that can effectively keep the cycle going, generation after generation. That is why some consumer advocates assert that it is not an accident but a “feature” of the system. The constraints on corporate power are simply too weak to force genuine, systemic accountability.

Psychological Warfare on the Consumer?

One might argue that a subtle form of psychological warfare exists in how product defects are managed. Consumers, eager to trust an industry giant like John Deere, second-guess whether they are using the product incorrectly. Dealerships might frame individual brake failures as anomalies. This dynamic can sow confusion and reduce the collective outcry that could prompt faster action. By the time owners realize there’s a real pattern, the product is already saturating the market.

The Impact on Consumer Advocacy

Advocacy organizations attempt to fill the gap by publicizing defect allegations, but their efforts can be overshadowed by corporate PR. These organizations also tend to be under-resourced compared to large manufacturers. Hence, a single class action complaint—like the one filed by Leroy Workman—can become the impetus for broader public awareness. The lawsuit’s claim that John Deere’s recall was incomplete or merely a “band-aid solution” suggests that the ultimate fix might require far more than replacing a single bell crank.

Why the Pattern Matters

If the court finds that John Deere’s approach was willful or especially egregious, it could set a precedent, reaffirming that large corporations cannot simply treat product safety as an afterthought. At the same time, if John Deere navigates the lawsuit without a major judgment against it—and the recall is deemed “adequate” from a regulatory standpoint—critics will see it as yet another instance of corporations escaping real accountability. This question—can the system truly penalize corporations for ignoring consumer safety?—is central to the complaint’s broader critique.

In the next section, we will shift to the public relations dimension, focusing on how large companies typically spin damaging allegations to safeguard their brand. Whether by selective admissions, community outreach, or the invocation of philanthropic gestures, corporations often adopt a well-established PR playbook to reassure customers, shareholders, and the public that everything is under control—even if the root cause of a product defect remains a looming concern.

---

7. THE PR PLAYBOOK OF DAMAGE CONTROL

When a beloved, century-old brand like John Deere faces accusations of placing a defective product in the market, the public relations stakes are high. Customers in agricultural communities often have a generational relationship with John Deere—family farms pass down brand loyalty along with the land. Therefore, revelations of a serious safety defect can shake consumer confidence at its core. According to the complaint, John Deere has opted for a recall procedure that claims to offer “free repairs.” But the lawsuit characterizes this approach as an attempt at damage control rather than a comprehensive remedy.

Controlling the Narrative

In scenarios like the John Deere brake defect, a key PR objective is to reclaim consumer trust before the issue spirals into a brand-damaging fiasco. Typically, a manufacturer under fire will:

1. Acknowledge the Recall: Issue a carefully phrased press release that states the scope and reason.
2. Minimize the Severity: Emphasize there have been “no serious injuries” or “minimal complaints,” if that is true.
3. Offer a Fix: Stress that the remedy is free and that the inconvenience is minimal.
4. Frame the Company as Proactive: Portray the recall as an example of how seriously the corporation takes consumer safety.

While the complaint does not dissect John Deere’s public statements in detail, it does allege that the recall’s design puts the onus on consumers to manage the logistics. Moreover, it questions whether John Deere has sufficiently accepted responsibility or admitted any design flaw that goes beyond the single bell crank part. In other words, from a PR angle, focusing on a single defective part can keep the blame on a smaller, more “fixable” element, thereby diverting attention from potential broader design or manufacturing issues.

The Power of Brand Ambassadors

John Deere might also mobilize its network of dealerships and local brand ambassadors, encouraging them to reassure customers that “everything’s fine.” Dealerships have a vested interest in retaining the trust of their communities and continuing sales of John Deere equipment. This local influence can be incredibly effective PR—neighbors tell neighbors that “John Deere is taking care of the issue,” diminishing the impetus for outraged public discourse. The complaint, however, contends that real solutions remain elusive, because the defective design might not be resolved by swapping out one piece.

Philanthropy and Community Involvement

A standard corporate crisis-management tactic is to amplify philanthropic endeavors and community engagement initiatives. If John Deere invests in farm-worker education, local scholarships, or environmental programs, those good works can overshadow negative headlines about a recall. While philanthropic giving can do genuine good, critics of corporate greed see such gestures as partially intended to mute criticism. According to the class action complaint, though, no measure of PR spin can erase the fact that tens of thousands of defective tractors remain in consumer hands.

Legal Posturing in the PR Arena

Another dimension of the PR playbook involves disclaimers designed to limit legal exposure. If the brand issues statements that the brake defect is limited to a “certain batch” of products or that the issue arises only under “certain improper usage conditions,” they might shift blame toward end users or narrower production windows. The complaint rejects these partial disclaimers, stating that the recall itself includes about 148,000 tractors, a number that is hardly a “small batch.” By controlling the narrative, John Deere can maintain that it is fulfilling all obligations and that the problem is not as dire as it may seem.

Social Media and the Power of Consumer Stories

In decades past, corporations could manage crises more quietly, controlling what appeared in mainstream media. Today, social media channels and online forums are integral to shaping public perception. If farmers or tractor owners share personal horror stories of brake failure—videos or photos of accidents or near-misses—this user-generated content can pierce the corporate PR bubble. Public trust can erode quickly.

Though the complaint does not delve into social media’s role, class action suits often rely on evidence drawn from consumer complaints made on Facebook groups, specialized tractor forums, or other digital communities. These testimonials can feed into a critical mass of dissatisfaction, prompting more individuals to join or support the litigation. Yet, the complaint suggests John Deere’s official recall and PR statements remain carefully vague about the severity and scope of the underlying design defect.

The Limits of Public Relations

While effective PR can maintain a veneer of corporate social responsibility, it cannot always counteract the tangible realities of repeated brake failures or an unconvincing recall fix. If mechanical issues persist, or if a high-profile accident occurs, no amount of spin can quell the ensuing backlash. Thus, while the complaint frames John Deere’s recall as an inadequate solution, it also implies that the brand is gambling on a typical PR strategy: reassure the masses that the matter is handled, rely on brand loyalty, and hope the wave of consumer dissatisfaction passes.

Looking Forward

How might this PR-driven recall strategy play out in court? If plaintiffs can successfully show that the recall fix does not address the fundamental design flaw, John Deere’s brand might suffer longer-term reputational damage. The public might become skeptical about future claims of product safety or about the brand’s willingness to uphold warranties. Even if the immediate legal settlement is manageable for John Deere, the intangible cost of eroded trust can be felt for years.

Simultaneously, the complaint is part of a broader cultural shift, in which an ever more vocal portion of the public demands authentic corporate accountability. Perhaps ironically, the brand’s own storied marketing—emphasizing tradition, family values, and reliability—could exacerbate the sense of betrayal among loyalists who discover their beloved tractors might harbor a critical safety defect. The next section, “Corporate Power vs. Public Interest,” will wrap up this entire narrative, asking whether the structures that have allowed such alleged misconduct to occur can be meaningfully reformed or challenged—either in court or in society more broadly.

---

8. CORPORATE POWER VS. PUBLIC INTEREST

In a world where multinational corporations wield enormous economic, political, and even cultural influence, stories like the John Deere brake defect lawsuit raise profound questions about the balance of power. On one side stands a global brand, deeply embedded in agriculture and holding significant sway over local dealerships, supply chains, and entire communities. On the other side are consumers—farmers, landowners, everyday folks—relying on the brand’s assurances to run their businesses or manage their properties without accident or undue financial strain.

The Stakes for Everyday People

The complaint highlights that owners of the allegedly defective tractors suffer in two primary ways: safety risks and financial losses. A brake failure can lead to accidents that threaten human lives, livestock, and property. Even if accidents are averted, the time spent hauling a tractor to a dealership for repairs (or waiting on a mechanic who never arrives on time) exacts a real toll. Meanwhile, the resale value of these tractors, tarnished by a recall, plummets. For individuals on tight budgets, this can be devastating. It’s a prime example of how wealth disparity plays out in real-life contexts: a small farmer might not be able to afford a backup tractor, meaning downtime is a direct hit to income.

The Larger Social Justice Dimension

Beyond individual owners, there is a social justice angle to consider. When major corporations prioritize profit maximization, rural communities—often already marginalized in broader economic structures—can be disproportionately impacted. A large farming operation might have multiple tractors and can shuffle equipment around to manage repairs, but a single-tractor smallholder cannot. This discrepancy in the ability to cope with product defects underscores how corporate practices can deepen inequality in an era of limited oversight and minimal recourse.

Moreover, if families lose faith in the brand, they might have few alternatives. Agricultural machinery is a consolidated market, with only a handful of dominant players. Changing brands can be expensive and complicated. As a result, John Deere’s grip on the community can persist even amid widespread dissatisfaction—another marker of corporate power outstripping the public’s practical autonomy.

Is True Accountability Possible?

The lawsuit attempts to use the legal system to enforce accountability, seeking damages for owners and a stronger fix for the defective product. However, class actions can be lengthy, with uncertain outcomes. Even if the plaintiffs secure a favorable ruling or settlement, it might not exceed the revenue John Deere earned during the period when it sold the defective tractors. Critics argue that in such a scenario, the lawsuit becomes part of the cost of doing business.

From a regulatory standpoint, improvements would require more robust funding and authority for consumer protection agencies, or legislation that mandates faster and more comprehensive recalls. But in many jurisdictions, the political climate—shaped by corporate lobbying and the ideological emphasis on “free markets”—makes such changes unlikely. So, while the lawsuit may yield some restitution, it might not lead to systemic transformation in corporate behavior.

A Broader Reckoning with Corporate Power

John Deere has historically enjoyed a reputation for reliability, environmental stewardship (at least in marketing materials), and robust community presence. The complaint’s allegations, if true, invite a reexamination of that reputation. Under neoliberal capitalism, it is not unusual for even revered companies to engage in risk-laden decisions, especially if short-term financial pressures overshadow intangible, long-term brand costs.

This dynamic also extends to other industrial giants. Whether it’s a flawed chemical disposal process, a dangerous pharmaceutical side effect, or a financial product riddled with hidden fees, the script repeats: the company denies wrongdoing, regulators respond belatedly, consumers suffer harm, and eventually a lawsuit or investigative journalism piece brings the issue to light. The cycle can continue indefinitely unless society reconfigures how it rewards or punishes corporate actions.

The Limits of Consumer Choice

One could argue that the free market provides consumers with the power to punish John Deere by purchasing competitors’ tractors. However, farm machinery is typically a specialized purchase with high brand loyalty, and dealers often form exclusive relationships with particular manufacturers. Switching brands may not be feasible or cost-effective for many buyers. The complaint’s references to the enormous number of defective tractors sold further highlight how deeply John Deere penetrates local markets, meaning the notion of “voting with your wallet” might offer limited solutions.

Furthermore, the brand’s overall quality track record—outside of the brake defect—remains strong in the eyes of many. As such, it might be unrealistic to expect large-scale consumer defections unless the recall fix is proven utterly worthless or new hazards emerge. In short, simply telling consumers to “shop elsewhere” might do little to rectify an immediate, systemic problem.

Consumer Advocacy, Political Will, and Hope for Reform

Despite the sobering reality, consumer advocacy organizations, class action litigators, and community groups remain a crucial check on corporate overreach. Every lawsuit that exposes an alleged defect helps build a broader consciousness around corporate ethics. As people become more aware of how major manufacturers handle safety risks, political will can grow for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Grassroots movements can also amplify calls for more transparency and corporate responsibility.

While large corporations might resist fundamental changes, sustained pressure—legal, regulatory, and social—can yield incremental progress. For instance, repeated lawsuits can encourage better internal oversight and more cautious product development. If the John Deere case garners significant attention, it could spur other tractor makers to ensure they don’t replicate similar mistakes, thus raising overall industry standards. Even if such improvements happen behind the scenes, it might benefit future consumers in tangible ways.

Finally, from a philosophical standpoint, the story of the John Deere brake defect highlights the reality that neoliberal capitalism is not merely an abstract concept but a framework that shapes tangible experiences for families, farms, and rural communities. Deregulation, profit-first logic, and the commodification of safety can converge to create situations where everyday people bear the brunt of corporate failures. The question is not just whether justice will be served in this single lawsuit, but whether the social and legal structures can be reconfigured to prevent such alleged misconduct from happening in the first place.

---

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

1. The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
2. Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
3. The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
4. My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....