📎 Source Note: Transparency is essential in journalism. The facts and figures presented in this article are derived directly from the legal filings in this case. A copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article. We encourage readers to review the primary source document for themselves.

Corporate Greed Case Study: General Motors LLC & Its Impact on Vehicle Owners

TL;DR: General Motors (GM) is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the company knowingly designed, manufactured, and sold nearly one million vehicles with a “dangerously defective” 6.2L V8 L87 engine. These engines are prone to “sudden and catastrophic” failure at highway speeds, creating an extreme risk for drivers. Despite being aware of the defect since at least 2021, GM continued to market these trucks and SUVs as “rugged” and “reliable,” while failing to provide adequate or timely repairs, leaving customers stranded for months with disabled vehicles.

Continue reading to understand the full scope of the allegations and how this incident reflects a predictable outcome of a system designed to protect corporate interests at the expense of ordinary people.

Introduction: A System Designed for Failure
Inside the Allegations: A Trail of Broken Engines and Betrayed Trust
Regulatory Capture & Loopholes: An Agency on the Sidelines
Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Price of “Efficiency”
The Economic Fallout: Devalued Assets and Lost Livelihoods
Public Health Risks: Danger on the Open Road
Exploitation of Workers: The Unseen Cost
Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined
The PR Machine: The Myth of Reliability
Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: A Tale of Two GMs
Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: A Slap on the Wrist
Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy
Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal
How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time
The Language of Legitimacy: How Courts Frame Harm
Monetizing Harm: When Victimization Becomes a Revenue Model
Profiting from Complexity: Corporate Shells and Hidden Hands
This Is the System Working as Intended
Conclusion: The Human Cost of Corporate Negligence
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

1. Introduction: A System Designed for Failure

Imagine driving your family down the highway in a new, expensive vehicle marketed as a “reliable workhorse,” only for the engine to catastrophically fail without warning. This is the harrowing reality described in a class-action complaint filed against General Motors.

The lawsuit alleges that GM’s popular 6.2L V8 L87 engine, found in nearly a million late-model Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac trucks and SUVs, is dangerously defective and can seize up at any moment.

This is a damning indictment of a corporate culture that appears to place profits far ahead of human safety.

The allegations paint a picture of a company fully aware of a life-threatening defect, yet choosing to continue selling the vehicles to unsuspecting families, professionals, and adventurers, all while its internal supply chain for repairs crumbled under the weight of its own failures.

This case exposes the deep-seated, systemic rot where corporate accountability dissolves in the face of profit incentives, a hallmark of neoliberal capitalism.

2. Inside the Allegations: A Trail of Broken Engines and Betrayed Trust

The lawsuit against General Motors lays out a stunning pattern of corporate malfeasance. The core of the complaint is the 6.2L V8 L87 engine, which GM introduced in 2019. This engine, equipped with “Dynamic Fuel Management,” was promoted for its efficiency but is alleged to contain a fatal flaw.

The defect results in “engine seizure due to internal engine component failure.” The complaint identifies the cause as improperly installed or missing wrist pin circlips, which leads to the connecting rod failing and the engine suddenly dying. This creates an “increased risk of a crash resulting in injury and/or property damage,” according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The human impact of this alleged negligence is severe. One engine failed after just four miles of driving. A professional driver reported his 2021 Yukon XL’s engine failed on the highway; after GM replaced it, the replacement engine failed, and then a third engine failed, all on the highway. As the driver stated, “this vehicle is not safe at all,” noting he was “lucky not to be hit” during the three separate incidents.

Even when consumers are under warranty, GM has been unable to provide a solution. The lawsuit claims the problem is so widespread that GM cannot build replacement engine components fast enough to meet the demand from both new vehicle production and the vast number of broken-down trucks and SUVs. This has left owners stranded for weeks or even months, with some service centers confirming a dire shortage of parts. Plaintiff Jose Ignacio Ramirez Hernandez, who bought a new 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, lost the use of his truck for over two months while GM attempted a fix.

Timeline of a Crisis

Date	Event
2019	GM introduces the 6.2L V8 L87 engine in its 2019 model-year vehicles.
2021	The lawsuit alleges GM has known about the engine defects since at least this year.
Nov 2024	A professional driver’s 2021 Yukon XL suffers the first of three separate engine failures on the highway.
Jan 16, 2025	The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) begins an investigation into engine failures in 877,710 vehicles equipped with the L87 engine.
Jan 29, 2025	A report surfaces of a 2023 Cadillac Escalade’s engine failing after only four miles.
Feb 12, 2025	NHTSA sends a letter to GM noting it has received 346 reports of L87 engine failure, describing “a sudden loss of motive power.”
Apr 3, 2025	A class-action complaint is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against General Motors LLC.

3. Regulatory Capture & Loopholes: An Agency on the Sidelines

A functioning regulatory system is designed to prevent widespread consumer harm before it happens. The allegations against GM suggest a profound failure of this system. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) eventually opened an investigation, it did so only after receiving hundreds of consumer complaints about sudden engine failure.

This reactive posture is a symptom of regulatory capture and the broader neoliberal push for deregulation. In this environment, government agencies are often underfunded, understaffed, and politically pressured to adopt a light-touch approach, intervening only after a crisis has already unfolded. Corporations become the experts, setting the standards for their own industries while regulators play catch-up.

To date, GM has not issued a recall for the class vehicles. This inaction, despite an active federal investigation and over a thousand consumer complaints, demonstrates the immense power corporations wield. In a system less beholden to corporate interests, the sheer volume of “sudden and catastrophic” engine failures would trigger immediate, mandatory safety actions, not just an “Information Request” letter. The fact that nearly a million potentially dangerous vehicles remain on the road is a testament to where the power truly lies.

4. Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Price of “Efficiency”

Neoliberal capitalism operates on a simple, ruthless logic: maximize profit, no matter the social cost. The GM engine case appears to be a textbook example of this principle in action. The lawsuit alleges that GM knowingly sold defective vehicles because the alternative—a recall, a production halt, or a costly engine redesign—would have damaged the bottom line.

The defective L87 engine was marketed on the promise of “greater efficiency.” This framing is crucial. Under capitalism, “efficiency” is often a euphemism for cost-cutting measures that increase profit margins, sometimes by compromising on quality, safety, or durability. The lawsuit suggests that the “efficiency” of GM’s new engine came at the cost of its fundamental reliability.

Furthermore, the alleged inability of GM to supply replacement parts reveals a system optimized for production, not for accountability.

An interal company source confirmed that GM cannot build 6.2L components fast enough to both meet new truck demand and fix all the broken ones. This calculus prioritizes new sales over supporting existing customers, demonstrating a corporate structure where the revenue from selling new, defective products outweighs the cost and obligation of fixing the ones that have already failed.

5. The Economic Fallout: Devalued Assets and Lost Livelihoods

The financial consequences of GM’s alleged misconduct extend far beyond the company’s balance sheet, landing squarely on the shoulders of working people. For every owner, a vehicle is a significant asset. The lawsuit argues that the defective engines cause a “substantial diminution in value,” as no one wants to buy a motor vehicle prone to catastrophic engine failure.

Plaintiff Jose Ignacio Ramirez Hernandez was on his way to work when his truck’s engine failed, robbing him of his transportation for two months. For people who “need their trucks for work,” as one report cited in the complaint notes, a dead motor is more than an inconvenience; it is a direct threat to their livelihood. The promise of warranty repairs is meaningless when replacement engines are unavailable and timelines are indefinite.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for this diminished value and loss of use. Consumers paid a premium for what they believed were reliable, heavy-duty vehicles, but instead received products with a latent defect that renders them worthless at a moment’s notice. This is a direct transfer of wealth from consumers to a corporation, built on what the lawsuit presents as a foundation of deceit.

6. Public Health Risks: Danger on the Open Road

The most alarming dimension of this case is the threat to public health and safety. The complaint is littered with references to the grave danger posed by the L87 engine. Complainants describe a “sudden loss of motive power,” a sterile phrase for a terrifying event: an engine dying at highway speeds, leaving the driver with no ability to accelerate out of harm’s way.

NHTSA itself identifies an “increased risk of a crash resulting in injury and/or property damage.” The driver whose engine failed three times on the highway put it more bluntly: “this vehicle is not safe at all.” He survived, but it was a matter of luck. The lawsuit argues that GM, knowing of this life-threatening potential since 2021, continued to market and sell these vehicles to the public.

This is the ultimate expression of corporate greed under late-stage capitalism: the willingness to endanger human lives for profit. The “cost” of a potential crash, injury, or death becomes just another variable in a risk-management calculation, weighed against the guaranteed profits from selling nearly a million vehicles. The public bears the risk, while the corporation reaps the reward.

7. Exploitation of Workers: The Unseen Cost

While the legal complaint focuses squarely on consumer harm, the logic of corporate cost-cutting rarely stops at the factory gate. The same pressures to maximize profit and efficiency that lead to defective products often create exploitative conditions for the workers who build them. The document does not detail the labor conditions inside GM’s plants, but the context of systemic failure invites critical questions.

In a system that prioritizes speed and output to the point of creating widespread defects, what pressures are placed on the assembly line workers? Were they given the time and resources to ensure components like the wrist pin and circlip were installed correctly every time? Or was the pace of production so relentless that such errors became inevitable?

Neoliberal business practices, such as “just-in-time” manufacturing and lean production, are notorious for intensifying labor, demanding more from workers while giving them less control. When a company’s quality control fails on this scale, it often points to a workforce that is overworked, disempowered, or both. The broken engines in consumers’ driveways may well be a direct result of a broken system on the factory floor.

8. Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined

A corporation’s actions ripple outward, impacting the communities where its products are sold and where its employees live. The GM engine lawsuit highlights a breakdown in the social contract between a major corporation and the public. Every stranded driver represents a local disruption: a missed day of work, a canceled family trip, a small business owner unable to serve clients.

The legal complaint notes that plaintiff Jose Ignacio Ramirez Hernandez bought his truck in Cumming, Georgia, and experienced an engine failure there. This localizes the harm, bringing it from an abstract corporate scandal into the daily life of a community.

The failure of a local dealership, Andean Chevrolet, to provide a swift and permanent solution reflects the helplessness of local franchises when the parent corporation fails to support them with adequate parts and procedures.

This erodes public trust not only in a specific brand but in the broader economic system. When a cornerstone of American manufacturing produces a product that is fundamentally unreliable and dangerous, it undermines the sense of security and fairness that communities rely on to function.

9. The PR Machine: The Myth of Reliability

Corporate marketing is the art of constructing a narrative. The lawsuit claims that GM’s narrative for its trucks and SUVs was a calculated fiction. GM marketed the class vehicles as “rugged” and “reliable workhorses,” targeting everyone from “daily drivers” to “hardworking professionals” and “adventure seekers.”

Consumers pay for the promise of reliability and toughness as much as they pay for the physical steel and rubber. That’s what branding is for.

According to the lawsuit, GM sold this promise while knowing its product was equipped with an engine prone to catastrophic failure.

This is the essence of corporate spin in a capitalist economy: the creation of a desirable image that is completely detached from the material reality of the product. The PR machine continues to run, generating profits from a carefully crafted myth, even as the products themselves are failing and endangering the very people who bought into that myth. The gap between what was promised and what was delivered represents the chasm between corporate image and corporate ethics.

10. Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: A Tale of Two GMs

This case unfolds against a backdrop of staggering wealth inequality. While ordinary consumers face financial ruin from a defective vehicle, the corporation that built it operates on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. General Motors LLC is a subsidiary of General Motors Company, a global entity with its principal place of business in Michigan.

The lawsuit seeks damages for consumers, but any potential payout must be seen in the context of the immense profits generated from the sale of the nearly 878,000 affected vehicles. For the individual consumer, a failed engine is a financial catastrophe. For a multinational corporation, the cost of litigation and even a large settlement can be treated as a predictable cost of doing business, a line item on a budget.

This disparity in power and resources is a defining feature of modern capitalism. It allows corporations to absorb the financial consequences of their failures, while the individuals they harm are often left with little recourse beyond lengthy and expensive legal battles. The wealth accumulated at the top provides a shield against true accountability.

11. Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

The alleged behavior of General Motors is not an isolated incident. It is part of a well-documented global pattern of corporate misconduct, where powerful companies in various sectors have prioritized profits over public safety, environmental health, or consumer rights. From the financial crisis of 2008, caused by banks selling faulty mortgage products, to pharmaceutical companies marketing unsafe drugs, the playbook is remarkably consistent.

First, a product is developed with a known or knowable defect, often as a result of cost-cutting. Second, it is marketed aggressively with a narrative of safety and reliability. Third, when the harm becomes undeniable, the company delays, denies, and defends, using its vast legal and financial resources to overwhelm victims and regulators.

This pattern is a systemic feature, not a bug, of global capitalism. It demonstrates that without robust, independent regulation and severe penalties for executive misconduct, corporations will predictably gamble with public well-being in their relentless pursuit of shareholder value. The GM engine case is simply the automotive sector’s latest chapter in a much larger story.

12. Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The legal system is supposed to be the ultimate backstop for corporate accountability. Yet, the remedies it provides often fall short of delivering true justice. The lawsuit against GM demands financial compensation for owners, including for the diminished value of their vehicles. It also seeks to have GM pay attorneys’ fees and costs.

Even if the lawsuit is successful, the outcome will likely be purely financial. Such settlements rarely, if ever, involve admitting wrongdoing or holding individual executives accountable for the decisions that led to the harm. Fines and damages become just another operating expense, priced into the cost of future products.

This lack of meaningful consequences ensures the cycle continues. When the system for accountability treats corporate malfeasance as a financial matter rather than a profound ethical and social breach, it fails the public. It sends a clear message to the corporate world: harm is permissible, as long as you can afford to pay for it later.

13. Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

This case powerfully illustrates the need for systemic reform. Preventing future incidents of this scale requires more than just one lawsuit; it requires a fundamental shift in the balance of power between corporations and the public.

One clear pathway is strengthening regulatory agencies. NHTSA needs the funding, authority, and political independence to conduct proactive investigations and issue mandatory recalls swiftly, without waiting for a mountain of complaints to pile up. Fines for safety violations must be increased to a level that genuinely impacts a company’s bottom line, rather than being a minor nuisance.

Furthermore, consumer protection laws must be expanded. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, cited in the complaint, provides a legal avenue for consumers, but the process is arduous. Whistleblower protections should be enhanced to encourage employees with knowledge of defects to come forward without fear of retaliation.

Ultimately, true reform requires collective action, with consumers and advocates demanding a system where safety is a non-negotiable right, not a luxury item.

14. Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal

A hallmark of late-stage capitalism is the art of legal minimalism—complying with the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Corporations employ armies of lawyers to navigate the gray areas, pushing the boundaries of what is technically permissible. The complaint suggests GM operated in this space.

For example, GM provided an express warranty that covers repairs for vehicle defects. However, the lawsuit alleges this warranty “fails in its essential purpose” because GM has been unable or unwilling to provide the promised repairs in a reasonable time. The company can claim it is honoring its warranty, while in practice, customers are left without a functioning vehicle for months.

This is a strategic weaponization of compliance. The warranty exists on paper, providing a veneer of legitimacy and consumer protection. But its implementation is so flawed that it offers no real remedy, trapping the consumer in a state of perpetual limbo. This approach treats legal obligations not as a moral baseline, but as a hurdle to be cleared with the minimum possible effort and expense.

15. How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time

In the world of corporate accountability, time is a weapon, and it is almost always on the side of the corporation. The timeline of the GM engine case is revealing. General Motors knew of the defect in 2021, but the first federal investigation did not begin until 2025. The class-action lawsuit was filed months after that.

Every day of delay is a day of continued profit from selling the defective vehicles. Every month the legal process is drawn out is another month that the full financial consequences are postponed. For a corporation, this delay has immense value. It allows them to manage cash flow, prepare legal defenses, and hope that consumer outrage fades over time.

For the victim, delay is devastating. It means more time without a working vehicle, more time shouldering the financial burden, and more time with the stress and uncertainty of a pending legal case. This strategic use of time—a slow regulatory response followed by a protracted court battle—is a feature of a system that is more adept at protecting corporate assets than providing swift justice to the public.

16. The Language of Legitimacy: How Courts Frame Harm

The language of the law is often cold and technical, and this can serve to neutralize the human reality of the harm being described. The complaint itself must use specific legal terms to be valid. The defect is an “internal engine component failure.” The warranty provides coverage for defects in “materials or workmanship.” The legal claim is for “diminution in value” and “loss of use.”

This technocratic framing is a necessary part of the legal process, but it is also how neoliberal systems obscure profound ethical breaches. A “sudden loss of motive power” is a terrifying, life-threatening event, not a sterile mechanical description. A “diminished value” is a family’s savings evaporating.

By translating human suffering into the language of contract disputes and financial ledgers, the system makes the problem manageable within its own logic. It allows for a resolution—a monetary payment—that addresses the legal claim without ever having to fully grapple with the moral failure of a corporation that knowingly put people in danger.

17. Monetizing Harm: When Victimization Becomes a Revenue Model

While not an explicit allegation in this complaint, a common pattern in late-stage capitalism is for corporations to find ways to profit from the crises they create. In a broader sense, GM’s behavior fits this model. By delaying a recall and continuing to sell vehicles, the company continued to generate revenue from a product it knew was defective.

The profit derived from these sales between 2021 (when GM knew of the defect) and the present can be seen as profit monetized directly from a period of undisclosed harm. Furthermore, if consumers are forced to pay for repairs out-of-pocket or seek remedies outside of a dysfunctional warranty system, the corporation and its network of dealers can potentially profit from fixing the very problem they created.

This perverse incentive structure, where a company’s failure can become a source of revenue, is a deeply cynical outcome of a profit-at-all-costs system. It turns disaster into a business model and consumer victimization into an opportunity for further extraction.

18. Profiting from Complexity: Corporate Shells and Hidden Hands

The legal complaint provides a small glimpse into the complex structure of a modern corporation. The defendant is General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The complaint notes that this entity is 100% owned by General Motors Holdings LLC, which is 100% owned by General Motors Company. All are organized in Delaware, a state known for its corporate-friendly laws.

This multi-layered structure is not accidental. It is a deliberate strategy used across the corporate world to diffuse responsibility, shield assets, and complicate legal actions. By creating a web of subsidiaries and holding companies, corporations make it more difficult to pinpoint where decisions are made and where liability should ultimately rest.

This opacity is a profitable tool. It allows the parent company to distance itself from the actions of its subsidiaries, protecting the core brand and its most valuable assets from legal and reputational threats. For the consumer trying to seek justice, it creates a confusing maze designed to exhaust their resources and resolve.

19. This Is the System Working as Intended

It is tempting to view the GM engine scandal as a case of a system that has failed. This would be a mistake. The allegations in this lawsuit do not describe a system that is broken; they describe a system that is working exactly as it was designed to work under the logic of neoliberal capitalism.

A system that prioritizes shareholder value above all else will inevitably produce companies that cut corners on safety. A system that weakens regulatory oversight will inevitably lead to harm being discovered by the public long after the fact. A system that treats corporate fines as a business expense will never deter future misconduct.

The catastrophic engine failures, the stranded drivers, the corporate inaction—these are not aberrations. They are the predictable, logical outcomes of an economic ideology that has decoupled corporate activity from social responsibility. This case is not an outlier; it is a data point proving the rule.

20. Conclusion: The Human Cost of Corporate Negligence

At its heart, this lawsuit is about the profound human cost of corporate decisions made in distant boardrooms. It is about the trust that is shattered when a product sold as a symbol of reliability becomes a source of danger and financial ruin. It is about the fundamental injustice of a system where individuals are forced to bear the risks created by powerful entities in the pursuit of profit.

The case of Hernandez v. General Motors LLC is more than a legal dispute over a faulty engine. It is a fight for accountability and an important reminder that without constant vigilance and collective action, the interests of ordinary people will always be secondary to the relentless demands of capital. The nearly one million owners of these vehicles bought a truck or an SUV; what they allegedly received was a liability waiting to happen, a perfect metaphor for the broken promises of modern capitalism.

21. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

The lawsuit appears to be a serious and well-documented legal grievance. The claims are not based on minor issues or subjective dissatisfaction. They are anchored in specific, life-threatening allegations of “sudden and catastrophic” engine failure that are backed by hundreds of consumer complaints filed with a federal agency, NHTSA.

The complaint cites an active NHTSA investigation into the exact same defect across the same vehicle classes, lending significant external credibility to the claims.

It identifies a specific mechanical cause—the wrist pin and circlip—and provides examples of the devastating consequences, including engine failure after only four miles and repeated failures for the same owner. Given the scale of the harm (affecting nearly a million vehicles) and the severity of the safety risk, this lawsuit represents a meaningful effort to hold a major corporation accountable for what appears to be a significant and dangerous product defect.

hernandez-v-general-motors-llc Download

💡 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.

GM sold 1 million trucks with dangerously defective engines.