📎 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 Misconduct Case Study: General Motors & Its Impact on Vehicle Owners

TLDR: A lawsuit alleges that for over a decade, General Motors knowingly sold millions of its most popular trucks and SUVs with a critical security flaw that makes them incredibly easy to steal. Instead of fixing the “Theft Prone Defect,” General Motors allegedly concealed it, leaving customers to suffer financial and emotional devastation while GM continued to profit from vehicles it promoted as safe and reliable.

Read on to understand the full scope of the allegations and how this case exposes a system that prioritizes corporate profits over public safety.

Introduction: A System Designed for Theft

For most Americans, a vehicle is the second-largest purchase they will ever make, a symbol of freedom and a cornerstone of daily life. Yet, a lawsuit filed against General Motors (GM) alleges that they turned that symbol into a source of constant anxiety and financial ruin for tens of thousands of its customers. The complaint claims that since at least 2010, popular Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac trucks and SUVs were manufactured with what is described as a “Theft Prone Defect”—a hackable key fob system that allows thieves to steal a vehicle in under 30 seconds.

This is not a story of a simple product flaw. It is a damning indictment of a corporate culture allegedly built on concealment and a regulatory system that allows automakers to police themselves.

The legal action exposes how the pursuit of profit maximization can lead a corporate giant to allegedly ignore known safety risks, violate federal standards, and abandon its customers, reflecting a systemic failure of neoliberal capitalism where consumer protection takes a backseat to shareholder value.

Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct

The core of the lawsuit is the claim that GM knowingly sold vehicles with a glaring security vulnerability. The “Theft Prone Defect” allegedly exists in two parts: a keyless entry system that can be easily hacked and a defective OBDII port that allows thieves to program a new key on the spot.

Thieves can use a simple electronic device to capture the radio signal from a key fob—even from inside a person’s home—and replay it to unlock the car and start the engine without setting off any alarms.

The personal cost of this alleged defect is devastatingly illustrated by the experience of plaintiff Jeremy Burkett. Just three days after his wedding and one day before his wife was set to begin chemotherapy for breast cancer, his 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 was stolen from his driveway.

The thieves left no broken glass and set off no alarm. The loss forced the newlyweds into a stressful financial situation and left them constantly worried, a fear that persists even with the new 2023 GMC Sierra he purchased, which he believes suffers from the exact same unpatched vulnerability.

Timeline of an Alleged Corporate Failure

Date	Event	Significance
1968	U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officially recognizes that stolen cars pose a “major hazard to life and limb.”	This established, over 50 years ago, that vehicle theft is a critical safety issue, not just a property crime.
2010	The first model year of “Class Vehicles” with the alleged “Theft Prone Defect” are sold by GM.	This marks the beginning of the period during which GM is accused of knowingly selling vulnerable vehicles.
April 20, 2017	Plaintiff Jeremy Burkett purchases a used 2016 GMC Sierra 1500.	Burkett, like thousands of others, purchased the vehicle believing it was safe and reliable.
November 9, 2022	Burkett’s 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 is stolen from his residential driveway.	The theft occurred via the alleged key fob cloning method, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
May 3, 2023	Burkett purchases a new 2023 GMC Sierra 1500.	He later learned his new, more expensive vehicle is also believed to contain the same unaddressed security defect.
2024	The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 is named the most stolen vehicle in Texas, with the GMC Sierra 1500 ranked second.	This data highlights the real-world consequences of the alleged defect, turning these vehicles into prime targets.
June 2, 2025	A class action lawsuit is filed against GM in the Eastern District of Texas.	The lawsuit seeks to hold GM accountable for allegedly concealing the defect and seeks compensation for affected owners.

Regulatory Capture & Loopholes: The Illusion of Safety

The legal complaint highlights a fundamental weakness in the American regulatory system: self-certification. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 was created specifically to reduce “the incidence of crashes resulting from theft.” The standard requires a starting system that prevents the engine from activating when the key is removed. However, automakers like GM are largely trusted to certify their own compliance.

This hands-off approach is a hallmark of neoliberal deregulation, which posits that corporations can effectively police themselves.

The lawsuit argues that GM affixed labels to its vehicles certifying they conform to all federal safety and theft prevention standards, a claim the suit alleges is false. By failing to secure its keyless entry systems against well-known hacking techniques, GM violated the spirit and letter of a safety law designed over 50 years ago to protect the public from the exact dangers its vehicles now present. The system of self-certification created a loophole big enough to drive a stolen truck through, benefiting the corporation at the direct expense of public safety.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs: A Calculated Omission

A central theme of the legal action is that GM’s decisions were driven by a desire to avoid costs and protect profits. The lawsuit alleges that GM has “long known about these Defects” but chose to conceal them to “generate and increase sales of the Class Vehicles” and avoid the expense of fixing the key fob security systems. While competing manufacturers like Jaguar and Range Rover developed more secure ultra-wide band technology to counter relay thefts, GM allegedly remained silent.

This behavior exemplifies a core tenet of late-stage capitalism: prioritizing shareholder value above all other considerations, including consumer safety and corporate ethics. A recall or a redesign of the security system would have cost money and potentially damaged the brands’ reputations for reliability. The lawsuit suggests that GM made a calculated decision that it was cheaper to deal with individual complaints and stolen vehicle reports than to implement a comprehensive fix, effectively externalizing the cost of its defective design onto its customers.

The Economic Fallout: Shifting the Burden to Consumers

The financial consequences of GM’s alleged misconduct fall squarely on the shoulders of its customers. When a vehicle is stolen, the owner is immediately faced with a cascade of economic burdens. These include the loss of the vehicle’s value, the cost of insurance deductibles, and the likelihood of higher future insurance premiums.

For many, like Jeremy Burkett, the insurance payout is not enough to purchase a comparable vehicle in a market of rising prices, forcing them into unexpected car payments.

Beyond the direct financial losses, owners suffer from the loss of use of their vehicles, the cost of alternative transportation, and immense personal stress. The lawsuit argues that had consumers known about the “Theft Prone Defect,” they “would not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them.” GM, meanwhile, profited from every sale, collecting revenue on vehicles that were allegedly worth significantly less than their sticker price due to the hidden security flaw. This represents a direct transfer of wealth from consumers to the corporation, engineered through an alleged concealment of material facts.

Public Health and Safety Risks: A Predictable Danger

The U.S. Department of Transportation concluded in 1968 that stolen cars are “200 times” more likely to be involved in an accident than non-stolen vehicles. The agency explicitly stated that reducing auto theft makes a “substantial contribution to motor vehicle safety” by protecting both thieves and “innocent member[s] of the public who are killed and injured by stolen cars each year.” By allegedly failing to comply with theft-prevention standards, GM is accused of ignoring a known and severe public safety risk.

The lawsuit asserts that GM’s vehicles have become “instrumentalities through which thieves engage in reckless driving or other criminal activity.” The proliferation of online tutorials on how to exploit the key fob defect has made these popular trucks and SUVs a favorite of both amateur “joy-riders” and professional thieves. This creates a predictable and widespread danger on public roads, a direct consequence of a design flaw that General Motors had the power, but not the will, to correct. The issue transcends property loss, becoming a matter of public health and safety.

Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined

When a specific type of vehicle becomes a known target for theft, the impact radiates throughout a community. The high theft rates for Chevrolet Silverados and GMC Sierras in Texas, as cited in the complaint, create an environment of fear and mistrust. Residents feel unsafe in their own driveways, and the sight of these common vehicles can become a source of anxiety rather than a normal part of the neighborhood landscape.

For Jeremy Burkett, the theft of his vehicle brought the threat directly to his doorstep. He describes the stress and anxiety caused by knowing that thieves had his address from items left in the car, leaving him to wonder if he is safe even at home. This personal violation, multiplied by tens of thousands of owners, erodes the sense of security that underpins a community’s well-being. The problem becomes a collective burden, straining local law enforcement resources and contributing to a rise in property crime rates.

The PR Machine: Corporate Spin and the Power of Silence

The lawsuit alleges that GM’s primary strategy has been one of silence and concealment. Despite “heavy public scrutiny by customers, media, and politicians,” GM has allegedly failed to admit the vehicles suffer from the “Theft Prone Defect.” GM has not issued a safety recall, offered warranty coverage for the issue, or provided a complete remedy. This inaction is a powerful form of corporate spin.

By refusing to acknowledge the systemic nature of the problem, GM can frame each theft as an isolated incident, a matter for the owner and their insurance company to resolve. The complaint states that GM’s authorized dealers, acting on instructions, routinely deny requests to repair the defect under warranty, often classifying the components as “maintenance” or “wear” items. This strategy of denial and deflection allows General Motors to maintain a public image of domestic quality and reliability while privately avoiding responsibility, a tactic perfected by corporations navigating crises in the neoliberal era.

Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed

At its heart, this case is a story of economic disparity and corporate greed. On one side are ordinary consumers like Jeremy Burkett, who invested their hard-earned money in a product they believed was reliable. On the other is General Motors, a multinational corporation that generated nearly $97 billion in net automotive sales in North America in 2020 alone. The lawsuit alleges that GM knowingly sold a defective product to these consumers, diminishing the value of their investment from the moment of purchase.

This dynamic reflects a broader pattern of wealth extraction in late-stage capitalism, where powerful corporations can impose the costs of their failures on the public. While consumers are left with stolen vehicles, higher insurance bills, and emotional distress, the corporation retains the profits from the initial sale. The lawsuit seeks to correct this imbalance by demanding GM disgorge its “unjustly obtained profits” and compensate owners for the diminished value of their vehicles, arguing that it is inequitable for GM to retain financial gains earned at the direct expense of its customers’ safety and financial security.

Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

The security vulnerabilities alleged in the lawsuit against General Motors are not unique in the automotive world, which makes GM’s inaction even more notable. The practice of “relay car theft,” where a key fob’s signal is intercepted and cloned, is a well-documented problem across the industry. While other automakers faced with similar defects took steps to protect their customers, GM allegedly did not.

For example, manufacturers like Jaguar and Range Rover developed and implemented ultra-wide band protection to counter relay attacks. This response from competing companies demonstrates that solutions were available and that the industry was aware of the threat. The lawsuit argues that while other car manufacturers addressed the defect and offered remedies, GM remained silent and failed to act, leaving its customers exposed to a known risk.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The lawsuit paints a picture of a corporate accountability system that has completely failed consumers. According to the complaint, GM has refused to honor its own express warranties, which promise to repair components found to be defective in material or workmanship. When owners of the affected vehicles have requested repairs for the “Theft Prone Defect,” they have been routinely denied by GM’s authorized dealerships.

These denials are often justified by classifying the defective security components as “maintenance” or “wear” items not covered under warranty. This alleged practice creates an impossible situation for consumers: they are sold a vehicle with a latent defect, denied a warranty repair when that defect becomes apparent, and offered no recall or other remedy from the manufacturer. This leaves litigation as the only remaining path for consumers to seek recourse, a costly and time-consuming process that heavily favors the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

The class action lawsuit itself represents the most direct pathway for reform proposed by the affected consumers. I am here demanding systemic changes to hold GM accountable and protect future customers. A key demand is for appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.

This includes a court order that would require GM to repair, recall, and/or replace the defective vehicles. Furthermore, the suit asks the court to compel GM to provide all owners with a curative notice that clearly explains the existence and nature of the “Theft Prone Defect”. Such actions would force the company to finally acknowledge the widespread problem and provide a tangible solution, moving beyond the alleged strategy of silence and denial.

Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal

A key feature of neoliberal corporate strategy is “legal minimalism”—the practice of adhering to the bare-minimum letter of the law while completely undermining its intent. The lawsuit suggests GM engaged in this by participating in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards’ “self-certification” process. GM allegedly affixed a label to each Class Vehicle certifying that it “conforms to all applicable U.S.A. federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards”.

This act of placing a sticker on a vehicle is the form of compliance. However, the lawsuit alleges that the vehicles, with their easily hackable key fobs, failed to meet the substantive purpose of the standard: to “reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from theft”. This illustrates how a system of deregulation and corporate self-policing allows a company to claim it is following the rules while simultaneously producing a product that allegedly creates the very danger the rules were designed to prevent.

How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time

For over a decade, from 2010 to the present, GM allegedly sold vehicles with the “Theft Prone Defect”. According to the complaint, the company has long been aware of the risks associated with its keyless entry systems but chose concealment over action. This prolonged period of inaction was not without benefit to General Motors.

In a neoliberal capitalist system, delay can be a powerful profit-maximizing strategy. Every year that GM avoided the cost of a recall or a security system redesign was another year of collecting full price for allegedly defective vehicles. The doctrine of “fraudulent concealment,” which the lawsuit invokes, argues that GM’s purposeful nondisclosure tolled the statute of limitations, recognizing that the company’s silence was a tactic designed to keep consumers unaware of their rights and the vehicle’s flaws.

The Language of Legitimacy: How Courts Frame Harm

The way harm is described can dramatically alter its perceived severity, and corporations often use neutralizing language to minimize misconduct. The lawsuit alleges that GM and its dealerships engaged in this practice when confronted by consumers. By allegedly telling vehicle owners that the failed security parts were “maintenance” or “wear” items, they reframed a critical safety defect as a routine, out-of-pocket expense for the customer.

This technocratic language strips the issue of its urgency and moral weight. A “hackable key fob” becomes a “wear item,” and a car highly susceptible to theft becomes a vehicle needing “maintenance.” This linguistic strategy is a tool used to manage customer complaints and deny warranty claims, transforming a corporate failure into a consumer responsibility.

Monetizing Harm: When Victimization Becomes a Revenue Model

While GM did not directly charge a fee for the defect, the lawsuit alleges a business model that profited from the harm it created. General Motors charged a premium price for vehicles that were known to be defective, thereby obtaining money that rightfully belonged to customers who thought they were buying a secure, reliable product. The complaint argues that GM enjoyed “increased financial gains” by selling vehicles with a diminished value at an inflated price.

This represents an indirect monetization of harm. By avoiding the cost of a fix and concealing the defect, GM protected its revenue streams and profitability. In effect, every consumer who overpaid for a Class Vehicle contributed to a business model that found it more profitable to risk customer safety and financial well-being than to invest in a proper security system. The lawsuit seeks to reverse this by establishing a constructive trust over these “unjustly obtained” profits.

This Is the System Working as Intended

The allegations against General Motors should not be viewed as an aberration, but as a predictable outcome of a system that structurally prioritizes profit over people. From the self-certification that allows corporations to police their own safety standards to the profit calculations that weigh a recall against quarterly earnings, the case illustrates neoliberal capitalism working as designed.

The concealment and the legal maneuvering are features of a system that provides corporations with the tools to manage and externalize the costs of their decisions. When a company can ignore a known safety defect for over a decade while continuing to market its products as “safe and reliable,” it reveals a deep, systemic flaw in our economy’s regulatory and ethical framework.

Conclusion: The Human Cost of Corporate Priorities

The legal battle unfolding against General Motors is about more than stolen trucks and faulty key fobs. It is about the profound human cost of corporate decisions made in boardrooms far removed from the driveways where families park their cars at night. It is about the story of Jeremy Burkett, whose new marriage and wife’s cancer battle were overshadowed by the stress and anxiety of a preventable crime. His experience, multiplied by tens of thousands, reveals the devastating impact of prioritizing profit over the fundamental expectation that a product will be safe and fit for its purpose.

This lawsuit challenges the broader economic and regulatory environment that enables such alleged misconduct. It asserts that consumers should not have to bear the financial and emotional burden of a corporation’s choice to conceal a known defect. The outcome will signal whether corporate accountability is a meaningful principle or merely an optional guideline in the pursuit of profit.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

Based on the detailed evidence presented in the 47-page legal complaint, this lawsuit appears to be a serious and substantial legal grievance.

The claims are grounded in specific federal safety standards , documented theft statistics that name the involved vehicles as top targets , and a detailed, firsthand account of the harm suffered by the plaintiff . The complaint methodically lays out an argument that GM had a duty to disclose the “Theft Prone Defect” due to its superior knowledge and the material nature of the flaw.

The lawsuit’s reliance on long-standing federal regulations and its connection of the alleged defect to clear, predictable public safety risks further establishes its legitimacy. It reflects a meaningful attempt to use the legal system to address a tangible harm that has affected a number of consumers. This is a significant challenge to a major corporation’s duties to its customers and the public.

burkett-v-general-motors-company-et-al 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.

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:

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.
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.
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".
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....