VinFast Knew Its Electric Cars Had a Massive Charging Defect But Sold Them Anyway.

They Advertised Speed. They Delivered a 24-Hour Wait.

VinFast marketed its 2024 VF 8 Plus AWD electric vehicle as capable of Level 2 charging at 32 amps and 6.6 kilowatts or more. That’s the industry standard. That’s what every competing EV on the market delivers. VinFast used that claim in its marketing materials and had dealership staff repeat it directly to customers.

What customers actually got: charging speeds under 2 kilowatts, a system that shuts itself off without warning when you try to use the advertised 32-amp rate, and a full charge time of nearly 24 hours. To put that in terms anyone can feel: you could walk from Los Angeles to Las Vegas in the time it takes to charge one of these cars.

Gil Abrahem Swigi leased his VF 8 Plus on August 8, 2024. Joseph Mizrahi leased the same model on August 18, 2024. Both are Los Angeles County residents. Neither was told about the defect before signing. Both discovered it only after the cars were in their driveways.

The 40% Amperage Theft

Here is what VinFast’s own service representatives confirmed to customers: if you try to charge at the advertised 32-amp rate, the car’s software detects minor power fluctuations and shuts the entire charging system down. The only workaround is to manually cap the amperage at 19 amps or below, which cuts charging power by nearly 40%.

That 40% reduction roughly doubles the total charge time. Joseph Mizrahi’s vehicle requires 7 hours to charge from just 60% to 90% capacity. Charging from the typical daily-use battery level takes over 20 hours. This is the car VinFast’s ads said would fit seamlessly into your daily life.

The charging system doesn’t just fail once. It shuts down without warning during overnight charges, which means customers are waking up in the middle of the night to manually restart the process. This is happening to paying customers who signed multi-year lease agreements based on promises VinFast had no intention of keeping.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What the Lawsuit Can’t Put a Price On

There is a specific kind of betrayal that comes from buying into a promise and discovering you were sold a prop. Gil Swigi and Joseph Mizrahi didn’t just lease cars. They reorganized their lives around the assumption that those cars would work. They planned their commutes. They planned their nights. They planned around a charging window that VinFast had already internally determined would never exist for these vehicles.

The most visceral detail in the entire complaint is this: the charging system shuts down in the middle of the night, without warning, forcing customers to wake up and manually restart the process. These are people who went to sleep believing their car was charging, only to discover in the morning that it wasn’t, and that they now have no reliable transportation for the day. For someone who relies on their car to get to work, pick up their kids, or manage a medical appointment, that is a crisis. It happens repeatedly, on a schedule dictated by a software bug VinFast admits it controls and refuses to fix.

When VinFast’s response to these complaints is to send service representatives directly to customers’ homes for repair attempts, that isn’t a courtesy, it’s a confession. It reveals that VinFast’s service infrastructure is so thin that it cannot reliably support the customers it sold cars to. The company that wanted to compete with Tesla and established automakers in the American EV market apparently cannot staff enough service centers to handle its own warranty claims. The customers absorb that gap, in time, in stress, and in the grinding indignity of calling a company that acknowledges the problem and then offers nothing workable.

VinFast’s official remedy menu contained exactly two options: purchase expensive new charging equipment at the customer’s personal expense, or receive no assistance at all. There is no third option. There is no software patch. There is no loaner vehicle. There is no buyback offer. The company admitted the defect lives in software it controls, and then handed the bill to the customer. This is the company’s relationship to accountability. The people who trusted VinFast’s marketing enough to sign multi-year lease agreements are now trapped in contracts for vehicles that cannot perform their most basic function, while VinFast continues to sell the same vehicles to new customers without disclosing a word of it.

Locked In, Left Behind

A lease is not a trial. When you sign a lease for an electric vehicle, you are committing to a specific financial obligation over a specific period of time, based on what the vehicle can do. VinFast’s customers made that commitment. They are still making their lease payments. The lawsuit explicitly notes that plaintiffs “performed their obligations under the lease agreements by making required lease payments.” The company has not held up its end.

The class action complaint specifically flags the economic trap this creates: the damages suffered by individual class members are “relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be entailed by individual litigation.” That is a polite legal way of saying that VinFast has structured the harm so that fighting back alone isn’t worth it. Each individual customer’s loss is real but not large enough to justify a solo lawsuit. The company banks on that math. A class action breaks that math.

Legal Receipts: The Complaint in VinFast’s Own Words

“VINFAST represented through marketing materials and dealership staff that the vehicles charge rapidly consistent with Level 2 or higher EV charging capabilities (6.6kW or more).” Complaint, Paragraph 11 — Swigi & Mizrahi v. VinFast Auto LLC (June 18, 2025)

“After taking possession, Plaintiffs discovered their vehicles charge at rates under 2 kW, requiring nearly 24 hours for full charges.” Complaint, Paragraph 13

“VINFAST acknowledges the defects result from software issues where minor power fluctuations cause the charging system to terminate erroneously. VINFAST admits the charging problems stem from software within the company’s control. Despite controlling the software causing these defects, VINFAST refuses to provide software updates or effective remedies.” Complaint, Paragraphs 23–25

“VINFAST offers only two inadequate solutions: install expensive new charging equipment at Plaintiffs’ cost or receive no assistance.” Complaint, Paragraph 26

“VINFAST knows its vehicles cannot achieve advertised charging rates but continues marketing them with false performance claims. Even after receiving consumer complaints about charging defects, VINFAST continues selling vehicles without disclosing the actual charging limitations.” Complaint, Paragraphs 29–30

“The charging system shuts down without warning, forcing Plaintiffs to wake during night hours to restart the process.” Complaint, Paragraph 20

How Long Does It Actually Take to Charge? A Side-By-Side.

Societal Impact: Who Else Gets Hurt When a Company Lies Like This

Economic Inequality: EV Access Gets Weaponized Against Working People

Electric vehicles have been sold to the public, by governments and automakers alike, as the path to cheaper transportation and a cleaner future. Federal and state tax incentives exist specifically to bring EVs within reach of people who couldn’t otherwise afford them. VinFast positioned itself as a more accessible, lower-cost alternative to Tesla and established brands. That positioning specifically attracts buyers who are more financially stretched, who did the math on total cost of ownership and decided an EV made sense for their budget.

Those are exactly the people VinFast harmed. The lawsuit covers everyone who purchased or leased a VF 8 Plus in the last four years. The complaint makes clear that the damages “suffered by individual Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be entailed by individual litigation.” VinFast calibrated the harm so precisely that most victims can’t fight back on their own. That is a structural economic trap layered on top of a product defect.

The unfair competition angle in the lawsuit cuts even deeper. VinFast’s false advertising allowed it to compete against EV manufacturers whose vehicles actually perform as advertised. Every VF 8 Plus sale made on false charging claims is a sale stolen from a company that was playing by the rules. Lying is, in this context, a business strategy that subsidizes VinFast’s growth at the expense of honest competitors and deceived consumers simultaneously.

Public Health: When Your Car Can’t Charge, You’re Not Just Inconvenienced

Transportation is healthcare access. Transportation is employment. Transportation is food security. When a vehicle requires over 20 hours to charge from typical daily-use battery levels, and the charging system fails unpredictably in the middle of the night, the consequences for a driver’s life extend well beyond annoyance. A person who wakes up to discover their car didn’t charge overnight and has a medical appointment, a job interview, or a child to pick up from school is not experiencing inconvenience; the company that created this situation has created a genuine crisis in that person’s life.

The complaint specifically identifies “loss of use” and “limited mobility and transportation options” as direct damages suffered by plaintiffs. In Los Angeles County, where both named plaintiffs reside, public transit is notoriously inadequate for many routes. A car that charges for 24 hours is, for large stretches of the day, not a car. It is a parked object draining a lease payment from someone’s bank account every month.

The Cost of a Lie: By the Numbers

What Now? Don’t Let Them Run Out the Clock.

The People Running This Company

Regulatory Watchlist

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): False advertising in vehicle marketing is squarely within FTC jurisdiction. If VinFast is running national ads with false charging claims, the FTC can act.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): For customers trapped in lease agreements for non-performing vehicles, the CFPB handles financing and consumer credit complaints.
• California Department of Consumer Affairs / Bureau of Automotive Repair: California’s Song-Beverly Act is one of the strongest lemon laws in the country. California owners have specific state-level remedies.
• State Attorneys General: California’s UCL and False Advertising Law give the California AG independent power to pursue VinFast for the same conduct alleged in this lawsuit.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): Unpredictable system shutdowns that could leave a driver stranded or without a functioning vehicle may fall within NHTSA’s vehicle safety reporting authority.

If You Own or Lease a VinFast VF 8 Plus

Document every single charging failure. Screenshot every error. Keep a log with dates, times, and battery percentages. Save every communication with VinFast’s service team, especially any acknowledgment that the problem is software-related. That paper trail is your leverage, and the class action attorneys need it.

The class covers all U.S. purchasers and lessees of a VinFast VF 8 Plus within the last four years who experienced the charging defect. The California subclass has additional remedies available under state law, including civil penalties of up to two times actual damages. Connect with the legal team at Ingber Law Group (contact information on file with the court), and connect with other affected owners through EV owner forums and social media groups where VF 8 Plus charging complaints are already surfacing publicly.

Corporate accountability does not happen because a company decides to be decent. It happens because enough people refuse to absorb the harm quietly. A class action is one tool. Local organizing, public pressure on dealerships still actively selling this vehicle, and collective complaints to state regulators are others. VinFast is still marketing these cars. Every day this continues is another day someone signs a lease based on the same lie.