A newly filed lawsuit says raised metallic logos in certain Mercedes-AMG seats became hot enough in the Los Angeles sun to leave burns shaped like the brand itself. The legal complaint describes two incidents… but PLOT TWIST!! leaves the vehicles’ broader scope, Mercedes’ knowledge, and the badge’s measured temperature unresolved.
Allegations, not judicial findingsTL;DR
- Two California drivers allege that raised metallic AMG badges on their seats heated in the sun and burned exposed skin during ordinary entry into their vehicles.
- Gabriel Lahijani says an urgent-care provider diagnosed a second-degree burn. His dermatologist later documented first- and second-degree burns and described the injury as “AMG inscribed.”
- Karendeep “Karina” Bath says a logo-shaped mark darkened on her shoulder after a similar incident about six weeks later. Her formal medical diagnosis was still pending when the complaint was filed.
- The complaint alleges that neither plaintiff received a warning or an effective replacement for the badge.
- The filing seeks class certification, notice to owners and lessees, a no-cost repair or replacement, restitution, and individual damages.
- No supplied ruling establishes that the badge is defective, that Mercedes-Benz USA knew of the alleged risk, or that the case may proceed as a class action.
The most concrete evidence described in the complaint concerns one medically documented injury. The larger case will depend on testing, vehicle records, and internal evidence that the supplied filing says has not yet been obtained.
Transparency notice: This article relies on the plaintiffs’ original complaint in Lahijani et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08680. A complaint presents one side’s allegations. The supplied record contains no answer from Mercedes-Benz USA, no class-certification order, and no ruling on liability. Medical records and photographs described in the complaint were not attached to the supplied document.
The Facts
On May 31, 2026, Gabriel Lahijani entered his 2026 Mercedes-AMG E-Class after it had been parked in the Los Angeles sun. He was wearing a tank top. According to his complaint, his left upper back briefly touched a raised AMG badge on the driver’s seat, producing immediate severe pain and a burn whose shape corresponded to the emblem.
An urgent-care provider diagnosed a second-degree burn, the complaint says. Three days later, a board-certified dermatologist documented first- and second-degree burns with crusting and deflated bullae—collapsed blisters—and advised that discoloration was likely while the risk of scarring remained uncertain.
On July 14, Karendeep “Karina” Bath allegedly experienced a similar contact after her Mercedes-AMG had been parked on Ventura Boulevard for approximately 90 minutes. She wore a sleeveless top and felt a burning sensation at her shoulder when she sat down. Over the following days, the filing says, a darkening mark took on the shape of the AMG logo. Her vehicle’s model and model year aren’t identified in the complaint.
| Detail | Gabriel Lahijani | Karendeep “Karina” Bath |
|---|---|---|
| Vehicle | New 2026 Mercedes-AMG E-Class, leased in early 2026 | Mercedes-AMG purchased for cash; model and year not specified |
| Incident | May 31, 2026, after the vehicle was parked in the sun | July 14, 2026, after approximately 90 minutes parked near Ventura Boulevard |
| Contact | Left upper back while wearing a tank top | Shoulder while wearing a sleeveless top |
| Medical status in complaint | Urgent-care diagnosis of a second-degree burn; dermatologist documented first- and second-degree burns | Formal diagnosis and treatment documentation still being obtained |
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC distributes, markets, and warrants Mercedes-Benz and Mercedes-AMG vehicles in the United States. The plaintiffs allege that the company participated in specifying, approving, testing, or implementing the relevant components and warnings. The filing also names unidentified component manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors as Doe defendants.
How the Alleged Hazard Works
The challenged component is a raised metallic AMG emblem positioned on the driver’s or front-passenger seat where an occupant’s upper back, neck, or shoulder may touch it. The complaint’s theory is straightforward: sunlight heats the vehicle interior, the metal badge transfers concentrated heat through a relatively small contact area, and brief contact with exposed skin causes a thermal burn.
This diagram summarizes the plaintiffs’ alleged mechanism. It is not a court finding or an independent engineering test.
The complaint identifies possible alternatives, including a heat-resistant polymer emblem, an insulated composite, a leather- or fabric-covered design, a protective surface, or placement outside the expected contact area. Those alternatives are proposals by the plaintiffs, not designs a court has determined to be feasible or necessary.
Several measurements needed to evaluate the theory aren’t in the filing. It provides no tested badge temperature, exposure-temperature data, contact duration, engineering report, material specification, or comparison with a proposed replacement. It also doesn’t identify every model, model year, seat configuration, or component number that may contain the badge.
What the Evidence Described in the Complaint Shows
Lahijani’s medical account is the complaint’s strongest described evidence. The filing says his urgent-care diagnosis was followed by a dermatology examination on June 3. The dermatologist attributed the injury to the interior car-logo plaque, photographed it, and recorded blistering and other signs of first- and second-degree burns.
“AMG inscribed”
The dermatologist’s description of Lahijani’s injury, as quoted in paragraph 43 of the complaint. The underlying medical record was not included in the supplied filing.
Bath’s account adds a second incident with a similar claimed sequence: a sun-exposed vehicle, exposed shoulder, immediate burning sensation, and a mark corresponding to the badge. But the complaint expressly says she was still obtaining a formal diagnosis and documentation of the burn’s degree and treatment plan.
The two accounts support investigating whether a common component was involved. They don’t establish how often such injuries occur, how many vehicles contain the same badge, or whether the badge reaches an unsafe temperature across the proposed class.
What Mercedes Allegedly Knew
The complaint alleges that Mercedes-Benz USA knew or should have known about the risk through component design, material selection, validation, hot-weather testing, warranty information, field reports, dealer data, and general engineering knowledge about metal surfaces in hot vehicle interiors.
It also points to an earlier case, Callaway v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, which involved allegations that different interior seating components overheated and burned occupants. The new complaint acknowledges that Callaway involved a different heating mechanism, then argues that it nevertheless placed the company on notice of thermal risks in seating areas.
That argument doesn’t establish that Mercedes knew about this specific badge. The supplied document includes no internal communication, test result, warranty record, prior badge complaint, or admission showing when the company first learned of the alleged problem. The plaintiffs say those materials should emerge through discovery—the formal process in which parties exchange evidence.
The complaint goes further and alleges, “on information and belief,” that Mercedes intentionally omitted the risk to preserve demand and avoid corrective costs. That is an allegation about motive based on information the plaintiffs say is largely under the company’s control. It hasn’t been established by the supplied record.
Warnings, Repairs, and the Missing Corporate Response
Neither plaintiff received a warning that the badge could become hot enough to burn exposed skin, according to the complaint. Both vehicles allegedly remained equipped with the component when the case was filed, and the plaintiffs say Mercedes had not provided them with a protective covering or replacement badge.
The supplied source contains no answer, motion, public statement, or other response from Mercedes-Benz USA. It therefore doesn’t establish whether the company disputes the incidents, the badge’s material or temperature, the proposed vehicle scope, the adequacy of existing warnings, or the allegation that no effective correction is available.
The Legal Fight
Lahijani and Bath filed their proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 5, 2026. They assert seven claims, including alleged design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, violations of California consumer-protection laws, and fraudulent nondisclosure.
The proposed classes would cover certain California purchasers and lessees whose Mercedes-AMG vehicles contain a raised metallic seat badge in an expected contact area. Separate proposed subclasses address current owners or lessees seeking replacement, buyers covered by California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and people who allegedly suffered physical injuries.
The exact scope remains undefined. The complaint says specific models, model years, seat configurations, badge designs, and part numbers may be identified or refined after discovery. It alleges that the proposed class exceeds 100 people and that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million to satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements. Those figures aren’t findings about the number of affected vehicles or the damages anyone will receive.
Two similar injury accounts may support closer scrutiny. They don’t establish a systemwide defect, corporate knowledge, or classwide liability.
The plaintiffs want notice to current owners and lessees, an effective no-cost repair or replacement, interim warnings, restitution, and damages for their individual injuries. They also seek punitive damages where legally permitted and supported by proof. Under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the original complaint requests only an injunction; the plaintiffs reserve the right to seek damages under that statute after completing its notice process.
What the Court Has Actually Decided
Nothing in the supplied record indicates that the court has decided whether the badge is defective, whether Mercedes failed to warn consumers, whether the company concealed a hazard, or whether either plaintiff is entitled to damages.
What Remains Unresolved
- Temperature: How hot does the challenged badge become under foreseeable conditions, and how quickly can it injure skin?
- Vehicle scope: Which models, years, seats, and component numbers contain the same design?
- Frequency: Are the two alleged incidents isolated, or do complaint, warranty, dealer, or medical records identify others?
- Knowledge: What did Mercedes or relevant suppliers know about this specific component before the plaintiffs acquired their vehicles?
- Bath’s injury: What diagnosis and treatment documentation will support or modify her allegations?
- Corporate position: Which facts and legal claims will Mercedes admit, deny, or challenge?
What to Watch
- Whether Mercedes-Benz USA files an answer or asks the court to dismiss some or all claims.
- Whether testing or discovery produces measured temperatures, badge specifications, complaint histories, or internal safety records.
- Whether the plaintiffs identify a defined group of models and model years sharing the challenged component.
- Whether the court certifies any class or limits the dispute to the two plaintiffs’ individual claims.
- Whether the complaint is amended with Bath’s medical documentation or a claim for damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case’s central factual question is measurable: whether this seat badge can reach burn-causing temperatures during ordinary sun exposure. The broader accountability question—what Mercedes knew and when—depends on records the complaint says remain in the company’s control. Until those records and tests appear, the filing documents serious allegations, not a proven fleet-wide defect.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
