Corporate Misconduct Case Study: Ford Motor Company & Its Impact on Hybrid Vehicle Owners

TLDR: A Summary of the Allegations

A class-action lawsuit accuses Ford Motor Company of knowingly designing, manufacturing, and selling more than 20,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles with a critical defect that can cause them to spontaneously catch fire and explode. The complaint alleges that Ford was aware of the “Spontaneous Fire Risk” associated with the high-voltage lithium-ion batteries in its 2020-2024 Ford Escape and 2021-2024 Lincoln Corsair models long before they were sold to the public. Despite this knowledge, Ford marketed these vehicles as safe, reliable, and eco-friendly, charging customers a significant premium for a hybrid system they are now being told is too dangerous to use.

We invite you to read on to understand the full scope of the allegations and what they reveal about corporate accountability in modern America.

Introduction

A vehicle is, for most Americans, a place of safety and freedom—a steel sanctuary for family commutes, road trips, and daily errands. The most fundamental promise a car manufacturer makes to the public is that their product will not endanger them.

A lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Company alleges that this promise was not just broken, but knowingly and systematically betrayed. The complaint lays out a chilling case: that Ford sold tens of thousands of its popular Escape and luxury Lincoln Corsair plug-in hybrids with a ticking time bomb under the floorboards—a high-voltage battery prone to catastrophic failure, fire, and explosion, even when the car is turned off and parked in a family’s garage.

This legal action is more than a dispute over a product defect; it is a profound indictment of a corporate culture driven by a profit-maximization imperative that holds public safety in contempt. The allegations suggest a reality where corporate knowledge of a lethal flaw was not a catalyst for caution, but a secret to be concealed.

This case serves as an enlightening illustration of the broader failures of neoliberal capitalism, where deregulation creates a vacuum of oversight, and the immense pressure for market dominance incentivizes companies to gamble with human lives. The story of these “Fire Risk Vehicles” is not an anomaly; it is the predictable outcome of a system that protects corporations far more than it protects people.

Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct

The class-action complaint against Ford Motor Company presents a detailed and disturbing account of corporate negligence. At its heart is the allegation that Ford knowingly sold more than 20,000 vehicles with a “Spontaneous Fire Risk” defect, stemming from faulty high-voltage lithium-ion batteries manufactured by Samsung SDI. According to the lawsuit, Ford knew, or should have known, about this catastrophic danger long before the first vehicle was sold.

This prior knowledge allegedly came from numerous sources.

The legal complaint points to the well-documented risks of thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries, including a comprehensive 2017 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that warned manufacturers about these exact dangers and outlined design protocols to prevent them. Furthermore, the lawsuit highlights that other major automakers, including Chrysler and Volkswagen, had already issued recalls for vehicles that used the same or similar Samsung batteries due to fire risks.

Even more damning, Ford itself had recalled its Kuga PHEV in Europe in 2020 for a fire risk defect linked to its Samsung battery.

Despite this wealth of information, Ford proceeded to market and sell its Escape and Corsair PHEVs, touting their safety, reliability, and the economic and environmental benefits of their hybrid systems. The complaint is filled with examples of Ford’s marketing materials, which feature slogans like “Journey with Confidence” and emphasize the vehicles’ “fun-loving freedom of spontaneous road trips”—a cruel irony for owners now terrified of a spontaneous fire.

The timeline of the alleged cover-up and response further underscores the claims of misconduct.

Timeline of an Unfolding Crisis

Date	Event
August 2020	Ford recalls its Kuga PHEV in Europe due to a fire risk defect in its Samsung-manufactured battery, instructing owners not to charge their vehicles.
April-August 2024	Reports emerge of three vehicles in Europe experiencing “battery thermal venting”—a precursor to fire—related to the defect.
September-November 2024	Ford and its battery supplier, Samsung, inspect the failed batteries to determine the root cause.
December 2024	Ford becomes aware of a fourth vehicle experiencing battery thermal venting.
December 13, 2024	Facing mounting evidence, Ford internally approves a recall for the Fire Risk Vehicles.
Post-December 13, 2024	Ford learns of three additional battery thermal venting incidents in Europe, one of which results in a vehicle fire causing property damage.
December 20, 2024	Ford officially notifies NHTSA of the recall, but initially tells vehicle owners they do not need to stop driving or charging their vehicles.
February 2025	Ford abruptly reverses its guidance, issuing an updated recall notice that instructs owners to “immediately refrain from charging” their vehicles to reduce the risk of fire.
February 5, 2025	Samsung SDI, the battery manufacturer, initiates its own recall of over 180,000 high-voltage batteries supplied to Ford, Chrysler, and Audi, acknowledging a fire risk that “could result in personal injury and/or property damage.”

The complaint argues that Ford’s proposed fix—a software update designed to detect battery cell anomalies—is dangerously inadequate. It points to recent, similar recalls where software remedies failed to prevent fires, including in Chrysler vehicles equipped with the very same Samsung batteries.

The plaintiffs contend that the only true remedy is a complete replacement of the defective high-voltage batteries, a solution Ford is allegedly avoiding due to its high cost. This decision leaves owners in an impossible situation: in possession of a dangerously defective vehicle stripped of its core functionality, with no effective solution in sight.

Regulatory Capture & Loopholes

The allegations against Ford highlight a deep-seated problem within America’s regulatory landscape: a system that has been systematically weakened to favor corporate self-policing over robust, proactive oversight.

The existence of a 2017 NHTSA report detailing the precise risks of lithium-ion battery fires is a critical piece of evidence. It shows that the government was aware of the potential for danger, yet a major manufacturer could still bring a product with these known flaws to market. This is a textbook example of how, under the logic of neoliberalism, regulatory agencies are often relegated to a reactive role, documenting problems rather than preventing them.

The system relies on manufacturers to conduct their own “due diligence safety testing and analysis.” The lawsuit contends that any adequate testing would have revealed the batteries’ propensity to fail. This leaves two possibilities, both of which point to a catastrophic failure of accountability: either Ford’s testing was grossly inadequate, or the tests did reveal the risk, and the company chose to ignore it. In either scenario, the lack of a mandatory, independent, pre-market safety validation process created the loophole through which these “Fire Risk Vehicles” were driven onto American roads.

This hands-off approach to regulation is not an accident; it is the result of decades of policy choices that prioritize deregulation and corporate autonomy. The consequence is a system of regulatory capture, where the industries meant to be overseen hold disproportionate influence, ensuring that rules remain flexible and enforcement remains lax. Consumers are left to trust that a corporation’s commitment to its brand reputation will be enough to ensure their safety—a trust the lawsuit against Ford alleges was disastrously misplaced.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs

At the core of this legal battle is the classic conflict between public safety and corporate profit.

The lawsuit explicitly accuses Ford of choosing “profits over safety.” This choice was not made in a vacuum; it was the logical outcome of a business model that incentivizes maximizing revenue and minimizing costs at every turn. Consumers paid a significant premium for these plug-in hybrids—the Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring PHEV, for instance, cost $14,000 more than its standard gas-powered counterpart. This premium was paid for a specific, advertised benefit: the ability to drive on clean, cheaper electric power.

The complaint suggests that Ford, in its quest to deliver a competitive product with an appealing electric range and fast charging times, “skimped on available protection measures.” Incorporating adequate safety features and thermal management systems into high-voltage batteries is expensive and can add weight and bulk, potentially reducing a vehicle’s performance metrics. The lawsuit implies that Ford made a calculated decision to accept a higher level of risk in exchange for a more marketable—and more profitable—product.

When the defect became undeniable, this profit-motive continued to dictate the response. Instead of initiating a costly but comprehensive recall to replace the defective batteries, Ford opted for a cheaper software update that plaintiffs claim is ineffective. This approach protects the company’s bottom line while shifting the consequences—the loss of vehicle function, the diminished value, and the constant risk of fire—onto the consumer. It is a stark example of how, in late-stage capitalism, human and financial harm to customers can be treated as a mere externality on a corporate balance sheet.

The Economic Fallout

The financial consequences for the owners of these “Fire Risk Vehicles” are severe and multifaceted, representing a direct and unjust transfer of wealth from consumers to a multinational corporation.

The primary economic injury stems from the fact that customers paid a substantial premium for a core feature that is now unusable. With Ford’s directive to stop charging the batteries, these plug-in hybrids have been effectively reduced to standard gasoline-powered cars, and less efficient ones at that. The thousands of dollars extra that families paid for the hybrid technology have been rendered worthless.

This loss is compounded by ongoing financial burdens.

Owners are now forced to pay for gasoline they would not have otherwise needed, completely negating the anticipated savings at the pump that Ford heavily promoted in its marketing. The promise of hedging against rising gas prices, a key selling point, has been transformed into a financial trap. Furthermore, the resale value of these vehicles has been decimated. A vehicle with a known, un-remedied fire risk and a disabled primary feature is a toxic asset on the used car market.

The lawsuit argues that had consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased these vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them. This overpayment, coupled with the ongoing fuel costs and the catastrophic loss of value, constitutes a significant financial injury. It is an economic fallout that lands squarely on the shoulders of ordinary families, while the corporation that profited from the initial sale has, thus far, avoided the true cost of making its customers whole.

Environmental & Public Health Risks

While marketed as a step toward a greener future, the Ford and Lincoln “Fire Risk Vehicles” now represent a significant public health and safety hazard.

The legal complaint details the grave danger posed by the “Spontaneous Fire Risk,” which exposes not only the driver and passengers but the public at large to an “unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death, or property damage.” The high-voltage lithium-ion battery, located under the vehicle’s seats, can fail catastrophically, leading to a thermal runaway event—a violent and self-sustaining chemical reaction that is extremely difficult to extinguish.

This risk is not confined to when the vehicle is in operation. The lawsuit emphasizes that fires can occur spontaneously while the vehicle is parked and turned off. This transforms a family’s garage, a public parking structure, or a curbside parking space into a potential disaster zone. The complaint explicitly notes the danger posed to “neighbors, owners of other cars parked near the Fire Risk Vehicles, and other bystanders.” A single vehicle fire can spread rapidly, threatening homes, businesses, and lives.

There is a bitter irony in the fact that vehicles purchased by consumers to reduce their carbon footprint are now a source of direct environmental and safety risk. By being forced to operate solely on gasoline, they produce more of the very emissions their owners sought to avoid.

More critically, the potential for intense, chemical-fueled fires presents a direct threat to public health and property, turning a symbol of environmental consciousness into a vector of public danger.

Exploitation of Workers

The legal complaint at the heart of this case centers exclusively on the harm done to consumers, and as such, it offers no direct evidence or allegations regarding the exploitation of Ford’s labor force. The document’s scope is confined to the marketplace, where the vehicles were sold, and the homes and communities where they now pose a threat. The story of the workers who assembled these cars and their components remains outside the pages of this particular lawsuit.

However, a systemic critique requires acknowledging that the corporate mindset alleged in the complaint—one that relentlessly pursues profit by cutting costs and externalizing risk—rarely confines itself to one domain. In the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, the pressure to maximize shareholder value often creates a parallel pressure on labor.

The same logic that might lead a company to “skimp on available protection measures” for a battery is frequently the same logic that leads to wage suppression, the use of precarious contract labor, and resistance to workplace safety improvements throughout the global supply chain.

While this lawsuit does not make claims about Ford’s labor practices, the prioritization of profits over consumer safety exists within an economic system where the well-being of workers is also frequently subordinated to the bottom line.

Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined

The danger of the “Spontaneous Fire Risk” extends far beyond the individual driver; it seeps into the fabric of our communities, transforming private property into a public menace. The lawsuit emphasizes that the threat is not limited to the open road. A catastrophic battery fire can erupt while a vehicle is parked in a residential garage, a crowded public parking lot, or on a quiet neighborhood street. Each of these locations represents a nexus of community life, and a fire in any one of them has devastating ripple effects.

A vehicle fire in an attached garage can quickly spread to a family home, endangering not only the vehicle’s owners but also their neighbors. In a dense apartment complex or urban parking structure, a single car fire can damage dozens of other vehicles and threaten the structural integrity of the building itself, forcing evacuations and displacing residents.

The legal complaint makes it clear that Ford’s decision to sell these vehicles externalized a profound risk onto an unsuspecting public. Firefighters, first responders, neighbors, and innocent bystanders are all placed in harm’s way by a defect concealed within the private property of a single consumer. This is a stark illustration of how private corporate decisions, made in distant boardrooms, can directly undermine the safety and stability of local communities.

The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics

While concealing a dangerous fire risk, Ford’s marketing department was crafting a narrative of safety, reliability, and liberation. The class-action complaint meticulously deconstructs this public relations facade, juxtaposing the company’s advertising promises with the grim reality of the defect. Ford’s brochures and promotional materials, cited in the lawsuit, painted a picture of advanced, dependable technology that empowered consumers to “Journey with Confidence.” These vehicles were not just sold as transportation; they were sold as a lifestyle choice—one of “fun-loving freedom of spontaneous road trips.”

This marketing was not incidental; it was a carefully constructed campaign to build trust and justify a premium price point. Ford touted the vehicles’ safety features and “advanced fourth-generation hybrid technology system” while remaining silent about the volatile battery packs.

Ford made specific, material claims about the vehicles’ utility and versatility, such as the ability to “seamlessly” switch between electric and gas power, a feature that has now been effectively disabled by Ford’s own safety warnings. This represents a classic case of corporate spin, where the language of safety and innovation is deployed not to reflect the truth of a product, but to obscure it. The PR machine created an image of reliability that was fundamentally at odds with the danger lurking beneath the floorboards.

Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed

This case provides a powerful lens through which to view the mechanics of wealth transfer and corporate greed in a deregulated economy. The lawsuit alleges a simple but brutal calculation made by Ford: that the profits from selling these vehicles outweighed the potential cost of the danger they posed. Consumers, trusting the Ford brand, paid thousands of dollars in premiums—up to $14,000 more for a Lincoln Corsair PHEV—for advanced hybrid technology. That money, extracted from the budgets of ordinary American families, went directly to Ford’s bottom line.

In return for that premium, customers received a product that the lawsuit claims is not only defective but life-threatening.

The result is a alarming transfer of both wealth and risk. The wealth flowed from the consumer to the corporation, while the risk—of fire, property damage, injury, and death—was transferred in the opposite direction. Ford’s decision to opt for a cheap and ineffective software patch instead of a full battery replacement is a continuation of this logic. It is a strategy to protect corporate assets at the direct expense of the customers who were harmed, ensuring that the financial burden of the defect falls on the victims, not the perpetrator.

This is the essence of an economic system where corporate greed is not just tolerated, but structurally incentivized, and the consequences are borne by the public.

Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

The “Spontaneous Fire Risk” in Ford’s vehicles was not an isolated or unforeseeable event, according to the complaint. It was part of a clear and documented pattern of failures across the global automotive industry, failures that Ford was well aware of. The lawsuit establishes that the defective high-voltage batteries, manufactured by Samsung SDI, were also used by other major automakers, including Chrysler and Volkswagen. Those companies had also been forced to recall their own hybrid vehicles for the very same fire risks, creating a trail of evidence that should have served as a blaring alarm for Ford.

Even more damning is the fact that Ford itself had encountered this exact problem before. In August 2020, years before the U.S. recall, Ford recalled its Kuga PHEV in Europe due to a fire risk associated with its Samsung-manufactured battery, even issuing the same familiar instruction for owners to stop charging their vehicles.

The legal complaint argues that this history makes any claim of ignorance implausible. Ford did not stumble into this crisis; it walked into it with its eyes wide open, fully aware of the dangerous propensities of the components it was putting into its cars. This pattern suggests that the decision to sell these vehicles in the U.S. was not a mistake, but a calculated risk taken in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The legal system is often presented as the ultimate arbiter of justice, the mechanism by which corporate wrongdoing is held to account.

This class-action lawsuit represents a powerful attempt by consumers to activate that mechanism, seeking not only financial compensation for their losses but also a genuine, effective repair for their dangerous vehicles. The plaintiffs are demanding that Ford be forced to do what it has been unwilling to do voluntarily: take full responsibility for the problem it created.

However, in the broader context of late-stage capitalism, the very nature of corporate accountability is often flawed.

Even if this lawsuit is successful, history shows that such cases frequently end in massive financial settlements where the company admits no wrongdoing. For a corporation the size of Ford, such a payout, while substantial, can be treated as a predictable cost of doing business—an entry on a balance sheet rather than a catalyst for fundamental change. The individuals who made the decisions—the executives and board members who chose profits over safety—are almost never held personally liable.

This creates a moral hazard where the corporation can absorb financial penalties for its misconduct while the institutional culture that produced the harm remains intact, ready to make the same calculations the next time a conflict between profit and public safety arises.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

This lawsuit is, in itself, a potent form of consumer advocacy. It is a collective action, a banding together of individuals who would be powerless on their own to challenge a multi-billion-dollar corporation. It demonstrates that the most effective tool citizens have to fight corporate malfeasance is solidarity. By pooling their resources and their claims, these plaintiffs are forcing a public reckoning that Ford would have likely preferred to handle quietly, behind the closed doors of individual arbitration.

The total failures in this case also point toward clear pathways for systemic reform.

The principle of corporate self-policing has, according to the complaint, proven to be a catastrophic failure. A potential reform would be to empower and fund agencies like NHTSA to conduct mandatory, independent, pre-market safety testing and validation for critical vehicle components, especially high-voltage systems in electric and hybrid vehicles. The law could be strengthened to mandate full vehicle buybacks, at the original purchase price, for any safety defect that renders a primary advertised feature unusable or dangerous.

Finally, creating genuine accountability requires imposing severe and non-negotiable penalties for the knowing concealment of safety defects, including personal liability for the executives who oversee such decisions, transforming the “cost of doing business” into a risk they are no longer willing to take.

Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal

A key feature of corporate behavior in a deregulated environment is the practice of “legal minimalism”—doing the absolute minimum required by law, and only when absolutely necessary, to create the appearance of compliance. Ford’s handling of the recall, as described in the complaint, is a case study in this tactic.

Ford’s initial recall notice in December 2024 fulfilled a legal requirement to notify the public, but it crucially downplayed the severity of the risk, telling owners they did not need to stop driving or charging their vehicles. This initial, softer response sowed confusion and delayed a full appreciation of the danger.

It was only two months later, in February 2025, that Ford reversed course and issued the urgent directive for owners to “immediately refrain from charging” their vehicles.

This two-step process can be viewed as a strategic maneuver. It allowed the company to appear responsive by initiating a timely recall, while delaying the more alarming and commercially damaging admission that the vehicles’ core feature was too dangerous to use. This approach complies with the letter of the law but violates its spirit, prioritizing reputation management and the mitigation of financial impact over the clear, immediate, and unambiguous communication of risk to the public.

How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time

In a capitalist system, time is money, and for a corporation facing a crisis, delay can be an immensely profitable strategy.

The timeline laid out in the lawsuit against Ford suggests that the company had access to information about the potential for battery fires for years before it acted. The 2017 NHTSA report, the 2020 Ford Kuga recall in Europe, and the recalls from competing automakers all served as warnings. Yet, sales of the defective Escape and Corsair PHEVs in the U.S. continued uninterrupted until the recall in late 2024.

Every single day that passed between the moment Ford knew (or should have known) of the risk and the moment it halted the use of its product was a day of continued sales and revenue.

Delaying a recall, delaying a full and honest disclosure, and delaying the implementation of a costly but effective remedy are not just procedural slowdowns; they are active, profit-generating decisions. This strategic use of time allows a company to maximize its earnings from a flawed product for as long as possible, pushing the inevitable financial reckoning further into the future. It is a cynical feature of a system where immediate profit often takes precedence over the eventual, and sometimes lethal, consequences.

The Language of Legitimacy: How Courts Frame Harm

The legal system has its own sterile language for describing human suffering and corporate betrayal. The class-action complaint against Ford, while detailing life-threatening dangers, must translate these perils into formal legal counts like “Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability” and “Unjust Enrichment.” These terms, while sounding technical, represent the raw, tangible harm experienced by vehicle owners.

“Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability” is the law’s way of saying that a product is not fit for its most ordinary and fundamental purpose. In this case, it means a car built for driving has been deemed too dangerous to operate as advertised, transforming a tool of freedom into a source of fear. “Unjust Enrichment” is the legal system’s term for a corporation profiting from deception; it alleges Ford took thousands of dollars in premium payments from customers for a feature it knew was defective and dangerous, and that it is unconscionable for Ford to retain those ill-gotten gains. This clinical language, required for the courtroom, can unintentionally neutralize the emotional and ethical weight of the allegations, framing a story of potential tragedy as a transactional dispute.

Monetizing Harm: When Victimization Becomes a Revenue Model

While Ford is not accused of directly charging customers for the risk they endure, the lawsuit claims a business model that effectively monetized that very risk from the outset. The revenue was generated not from the harm itself, but from the initial act of selling a dangerous product under the guise of safety and quality. Every single Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair PHEV sold represented a successful transaction where Ford profited from concealing a known defect.

The decision to market and sell these vehicles, despite ample warnings and knowledge of the “Spontaneous Fire Risk,” was an economic one. The company chose to collect the substantial revenue and premiums from over 20,000 sales rather than invest the necessary capital into engineering a safer battery system or delay the product launch to ensure its integrity. In this model, consumer safety becomes a cost to be minimized, and consumer risk becomes an acceptable byproduct of profit-maximization. The profit was realized upfront, turning the very act of placing customers in jeopardy into a successful quarter for the company.

Profiting from Complexity: When Obscurity Shields Misconduct

The modern economy is built on vast and complex global supply chains, a complexity that corporations can exploit to deflect responsibility. The lawsuit identifies the high-voltage batteries as being manufactured by a third-party supplier, Samsung SDI. In many corporate accountability cases, this layer of separation is used to create distance from a defect, allowing a company to point fingers at its suppliers rather than accept ultimate responsibility.

However, the lawsuit against Ford cuts through this complexity by asserting that Ford, as the final designer, manufacturer, and warrantor of the vehicles, had the non-delegable duty to ensure every component was safe. Ford is the entity that integrated the battery into the vehicle’s design, programmed its control systems, and marketed the final product to consumers under its own trusted brand name.

The argument is that Ford cannot hide behind its supplier when it had its own independent knowledge, from industry reports and its own prior recalls, that these specific types of components posed a significant risk. The complexity of the supply chain, in this view, is not an excuse for ignorance but a reason for heightened diligence—a diligence Ford failed to perform.

This Is the System Working as Intended

It is tempting to view the case of Ford’s “Fire Risk Vehicles” as an aberration—a story of one company that failed its customers. However, a deeper analysis suggests this is not a story of a system that has failed, but of a system that has worked exactly as it was designed. Neoliberal capitalism, with its emphasis on deregulation, corporate self-policing, and the primacy of shareholder value, creates the precise conditions for such outcomes to occur.

When regulatory agencies are underfunded and relegated to a reactive role, corporate “due diligence” becomes the first and only line of defense, a defense that is incentivized to fail when it conflicts with profit. When the consequences for corporate misconduct are typically limited to financial settlements with no admission of guilt, the potential for harm becomes just another risk to be managed on a balance sheet. The marketing of safety while concealing danger, the prioritization of cost-cutting over robust engineering, and the externalization of risk onto the public are not bugs in the system; they are its features. This lawsuit is not exposing a flaw in the machine, but rather the machine’s predictable, and often brutal, operation.

Conclusion

The legal battle over Ford’s Escape and Lincoln Corsair hybrids is ultimately about more than just defective batteries and financial losses. It is about the human cost of corporate decisions. It is about the fear felt by a family every time they park their car in the garage, the financial strain on owners who were sold a false promise, and the danger posed to entire communities by a threat they had no part in creating. The named plaintiffs—Harry Hilburg, Marianne Bigelow, and William Simmons—represent tens of thousands of ordinary people who placed their trust in one of America’s most iconic brands and were betrayed.

This case forces a confrontation with a fundamental question: What is the primary purpose of a corporation? Is it solely to generate profit for its shareholders, or does it have a foundational duty to ensure the well-being of its customers and the public? The allegations in this complaint suggest that these two purposes were placed in conflict, and profit was chosen over people. This lawsuit is a fight to reassert the principle that public safety cannot be treated as a disposable commodity and that no company, regardless of its size or influence, is above the most basic promise of all: to do no harm.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

Given the extensive and specific evidence presented in the class-action complaint, this lawsuit is unequivocally serious. The claims are not vague or speculative; they are grounded in a detailed timeline of events, specific vehicle models, and a named component manufacturer. The lawsuit substantiates its allegations by referencing external, credible sources, including a 2017 NHTSA report on lithium-ion battery risks and a series of parallel recalls by Ford itself and other major automakers using the same components.

The harm alleged is concrete, severe, and multifaceted, encompassing significant financial damages, the loss of primary vehicle function, and a credible threat of property damage, injury, and death. The legal claims are well-established causes of action, from breach of federal warranty law to state-level consumer protection statutes and common law fraud.

💡 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.