Kia and Hyundai Knew Their Cars Were Easy to Steal. They Built Millions Anyway.
For a decade, two auto giants skipped a $170 anti-theft device that 96% of competitors used. Innocent drivers paid with their lives. Now, a federal appeals court says their victims can finally sue.
● CRITICAL SEVERITYwhile Kia/Hyundai had only 26%
Between 2011 and 2021, Kia and Hyundai deliberately produced millions of vehicles without engine immobilizers, a standard anti-theft device that costs roughly $170 per car and was already used by 96% of their competitors. The companies knew immobilizers worked. They praised them in their own regulatory filings. They chose not to install them anyway. When thieves inevitably targeted these cars en masse, innocent drivers were killed and maimed. A federal appeals court has now ruled that Kia and Hyundai cannot hide behind legal technicalities designed for careless individual car owners: as sophisticated manufacturers who understood the risk, they can be held liable for the harm their design choices caused.
A man is dead. A man is severely injured. Two corporations built the conditions for both outcomes and collected billions while doing it. That is not an accident. That is a choice.
The facts of this case are not complicated. Kia and Hyundai knew that engine immobilizers prevent car theft. They said so in their own filings with federal regulators. They knew their competitors had adopted immobilizers as a standard feature through the 1990s. And they knew that without immobilizers, the physical design of their vehicles, ignition assemblies that broke apart with minimal force and could be activated with a USB cord or a pair of pliers, made their cars uniquely easy to steal. None of that knowledge stopped them from producing millions of cars this way, year after year, for a full decade.
When the predictable happened and thieves began targeting these vehicles at catastrophic rates, real people suffered real consequences. In Columbus, Ohio, an unlicensed 15-year-old stole a Kia and, while fleeing police, struck and killed Matthew Moshi. In the same city, a 16-year-old stole a Hyundai and collided with Donald Strench, leaving him with multiple fractures and severe head injuries. These are not statistics. These are the specific human costs of specific corporate decisions made in specific boardrooms over a specific decade.
The companies then attempted to use the legal system as a second line of defense, arguing that longstanding Ohio precedents shielded them from liability. A federal appeals court disagreed, ruling in September 2025 that the legal protections designed for individual car owners who leave their keys in the ignition do not extend to multinational manufacturers who knowingly designed and mass-produced defective vehicles.
| 01 | Between 2011 and 2021, Kia and Hyundai knowingly produced millions of vehicles without engine immobilizers, a standard anti-theft device adopted by 96% of competitor vehicles by 2015. | high |
| 02 | The companies had previously praised the effectiveness of immobilizers in their own federal regulatory filings, demonstrating they understood the devices worked and deliberately chose not to install them. | high |
| 03 | The physical design of these vehicles compounded their theft vulnerability: ignition assemblies broke apart with minimal force and could be activated with household items like a USB cord or pliers, enabling theft in under 90 seconds. | high |
| 04 | An immobilizer cost approximately $170 per vehicle. Kia and Hyundai chose savings over safety across millions of units while collecting full market-rate prices from consumers. | high |
| 05 | By 2015, only 26% of Kia and Hyundai vehicles had immobilizers, compared to 96% of other vehicles on the market, making their cars uniquely attractive targets for thieves. | high |
| 06 | Matthew Moshi was killed and Donald Strench was severely injured when teenagers stole Kia and Hyundai vehicles and drove them recklessly. Both plaintiffs brought product liability claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act. | high |
| 01 | Kia and Hyundai mass-produced an entire lineup of vehicles they internally knew were disproportionately easy to steal, selling them at standard market prices without disclosing the anti-theft gap to consumers. | high |
| 02 | The $170 per-vehicle cost of an immobilizer represents a negligible fraction of vehicle sale prices. Eliminating it across millions of vehicles produced substantial savings at direct cost to public safety. | high |
| 03 | The companies did not alert consumers, dealerships, or insurers that their vehicles were significantly more vulnerable to theft than competitors, depriving buyers of information material to their purchase decision. | med |
| 04 | Federal safety standards adopted more than 50 years ago explicitly recognized that reducing car theft protects “the many innocent members of the public who are killed and injured by stolen cars.” Kia and Hyundai, as regulated entities, were aware of this framework and chose to underperform it. | high |
| 01 | Between 2020 and 2021, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, saw a nearly eightfold increase in stolen Hyundai and Kia vehicles, destabilizing communities and straining police resources. | high |
| 02 | In 2022, Columbus, Ohio, reported a spike in Kia and Hyundai thefts that almost doubled the city’s overall vehicle theft rate from two years prior, directly attributable to the design gap. | high |
| 03 | A viral YouTube guide for stealing Kia and Hyundai vehicles spawned the “Kia Challenge,” a social media trend in which teenagers, most often young males, competed to steal and joyride these cars. The design defect is what made the trend possible. | high |
| 04 | The nationwide theft surge imposed costs on municipal governments, insurance systems, law enforcement agencies, and individual victims well beyond the two plaintiffs in this case. | med |
| 01 | Federal anti-theft vehicle standards, adopted over 50 years ago, explicitly target accident reduction from vehicle theft. Kia and Hyundai operated within this regulatory environment for a decade while systematically underperforming its intent. | high |
| 02 | The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 1968 rulemaking cited evidence that 18.2% of stolen cars become involved in accidents and concluded stolen vehicles create “a major hazard to life and limb.” Kia and Hyundai, as regulated manufacturers, had full access to this research and proceeded regardless. | high |
| 03 | No federal mandate required immobilizers in U.S. vehicles during this period, creating a regulatory gap that Kia and Hyundai exploited while competitors voluntarily adopted the standard. | med |
| 01 | Kia and Hyundai moved to dismiss both lawsuits before trial, arguing they were shielded by legal precedents designed to protect individual car owners who leave keys in their ignitions. A federal appeals court rejected this argument in September 2025. | high |
| 02 | The district court initially sided with the manufacturers, dismissing the victims’ claims on proximate causation grounds before any discovery or trial. The Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling for the core design defect and warning claims. | high |
| 03 | The companies argued that a viral social media theft trend made the accidents “unforeseeable,” a position the appeals court explicitly rejected, noting the theft surge began before the Kia Challenge emerged. | med |
| 04 | Kia and Hyundai characterized the plaintiffs’ legal theories as “novel” in an effort to discourage the federal court from allowing the claims to proceed, even though the claims rest directly on established product liability law. | med |
| 01 | Matthew Moshi died after an unlicensed 15-year-old stole a Kia and struck his vehicle while fleeing police. His estate is now a plaintiff in federal court. | high |
| 02 | Donald Strench suffered multiple fractures and severe head injuries after a 16-year-old stole a Hyundai and collided with his vehicle while joyriding. | high |
| 03 | Federal data established more than 50 years ago that stolen vehicles are involved in accidents at a rate of 18.2%, creating a documented, predictable, and well-understood public safety hazard that Kia and Hyundai’s design choices made significantly worse. | high |
| 04 | The design allowed theft by individuals with no technical skill using household items, meaning the population of potential thieves, and potential accident victims, was as large as possible. | high |
“By 2015, 96% of other cars had immobilizers, compared to only 26% of Kia and Hyundai vehicles.”
This single statistic makes the companies’ argument that the design was industry-standard impossible to sustain. They were not following the industry. They were lagging it by an enormous margin at the exact moment their vehicles became prime theft targets.
“These physical features, combined with the lack of immobilizers or equivalent devices, made it possible for people with little technical skill to steal the cars in under 90 seconds.”
This is not a sophisticated attack requiring specialized knowledge. Anyone with a USB cord could steal these vehicles in the time it takes to watch a short video. That is the direct product of choices Kia and Hyundai made.
“Having praised the effectiveness of immobilizers in prior regulatory filings, Kia and Hyundai understood that without them, their cars would be easy to steal.”
This is not a case of ignorance. The companies documented their own understanding that immobilizers prevent theft, then declined to install them in millions of vehicles. Knowledge plus inaction equals a deliberate choice.
“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited evidence that ‘18.2 percent of . . . stolen cars became involved in accidents.’ It thus concluded that stolen vehicles created ‘a major hazard to life and limb on the highways.'”
This research is more than 50 years old. The link between vehicle theft and serious accidents was not a surprise or a novel theory. It was established federal regulatory knowledge that Kia and Hyundai, as regulated manufacturers, had a legal and ethical obligation to account for.
“A manufacturer ‘ha[s] an obligation to be an expert in its product, which includes the testing and monitoring of known and possible hazards.'”
The court draws a sharp line between what an ordinary car owner is expected to know and what a sophisticated manufacturer is required to know. Kia and Hyundai cannot claim ignorance when their own filings and the regulatory record establish exactly what they knew.
“Between 2020 and 2021, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, saw a nearly eightfold jump in stolen Hyundai and Kia vehicles.”
An eightfold increase is not a trend. It is an explosion. It reflects the real-world consequence of selling millions of easily stolen vehicles into communities that bore the full cost of that corporate decision.
“OPLA requires manufacturers to foresee and guard against risks that ordinary people may overlook.”
This is the core of the court’s ruling. Manufacturers are not ordinary people. They have specialized knowledge, testing resources, and regulatory obligations. The law holds them to a higher standard because they have a higher capacity to prevent harm.
“The numbers climbed even higher when, in 2022, a YouTube user posted a ‘how-to’ guide for stealing Kia and Hyundai vehicles. The video spread virally on social media and gave rise to the ‘Kia Challenge.'”
The Kia Challenge was not the cause of the problem. It was the amplification of a design vulnerability that Kia and Hyundai created. Without cars that could be stolen in 90 seconds with a USB cord, no viral trend could have followed.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
