Laura and James Sampson, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al.

Newark, New Jersey consumer law lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation consumer class action.



Plaintiffs Laura and James Sampson, Anthony Ventura and Joanne

Fulgieri Ventura, Elizabeth Wheatley, and Shirley Reinhard, on her own behalf and

on behalf of the Estate of Kenneth Reinhard, (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action for

themselves and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased

any 2013-2021 Subaru equipped with an autonomous emergency braking (“AEB”)

system that includes “Pre-Collision Braking” and “Reverse Automatic Braking”

(“AEB Class Vehicles”) and on behalf of all persons in the United States who

purchased or leased any 2013-2021 Subaru equipped with Lane Keep Assist (“LKA

Class Vehicles”), against Subaru of America, Inc. (“SOA”) and Subaru Corporation,

formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., (“Subaru Corp.”) (together with

SOA, “Subaru” or “Defendants”). The allegations herein are based on personal

knowledge as to Plaintiffs’ own experiences and are made as to other matters based

on an investigation by counsel, including analysis of publicly available information.



Autonomous emergency braking systems are one of the most highly

touted advancements in automobile safety. As described by Consumer Reports, with

AEB systems installed, “[t]he vehicle stops independently when it senses a crash is

imminent to avoid a crash, or to reduce the severity of a crash that can’t be avoided.”1

Forward-oriented systems activate when the car is driving forward, and rearwardoriented

systems activate when the car is in reverse.2 When working properly, these

systems are intended to reduce the incidence of collisions and the resultant injuries.



Subaru’s Pre-Collision Braking, along with Lane Keep Assist, is a part

of the “EyeSight Driver Assist Technology” suite of safety features. As described

by Subaru on its website3:



Omitted



As further described by Subaru, Pre-Collision Braking, a forwardoriented

system, “helps you avoid or reduce frontal impacts by alerting you and

applying full braking force in emergency situations,” and “can even bring you to a

full stop if necessary.”4 Similarly, Reverse Automatic Braking, a rearward-oriented

system, “senses objects behind your Subaru when backing up at a low speed and

applies the brakes when necessary.”



While Pre-Collision Braking relies on forward-facing cameras to

monitor the area in front of the vehicle, Reverse Automatic Braking relies on 4 ultrasonic

sensors, or radar, to detect objects behind the vehicle. For both systems, if an

obstacle is detected, the system is supposed to sound an alarm and flash a warning,

and then activate the brakes if the driver does not do so.



The front cameras are also employed by other EyeSight features,

including Lane Keep Assist. The cameras are supposed to monitor the road for lane

markings and sound alarms if the vehicle strays over the lines or sways between

them. If the driver does not respond quickly enough, Lane Keep Assist is supposed

to correct the vehicle’s steering to keep the vehicle in the lane.



Subaru has widely disseminated within the United States advertising

alleging the superior safety of its EyeSight-equipped vehicles. Subaru particularly

emphasized the Pre-Collision Braking or forward AEB system described infra.

Indeed, Subaru’s car commercials have become ubiquitous on television, promising

consumers piece of mind that is said to come from Subaru’s superior commitment

to safety and development of the EyeSight systems, which can allegedly prevent

your family from needing medical care or keep your easily distracted and

inexperienced teenaged driver safe.



For these systems to work as intended and advertised, Subaru is

responsible for ensuring that its suppliers manufacture the component systems

correctly and that they are installed properly at the factory. Subaru is also

responsible for ensuring that the AEB System itself has adequate programming to

handle real-world driving conditions and that the components systems communicate

properly with one another. For example, the front-facing cameras or the rear-facing

sensors must communicate information to the braking system and the ABS Control

Module to apply the brakes, they must communicate with the Transmission Control

Module (“TCM”) to shift the car into the proper gear, and they must communicate

with the Engine Control Module (“ECM”) to limit power from the engine so that car

is no longer propelled forward if the system. Calibrating these systems to work

together properly is Subaru’s responsibility.



Subaru failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the AEB Class

(defined below in Class Action Allegations) before or during the time of sale that

the AEB systems in Class Vehicles have manufacturing and workmanship defects

including but not limited to poor calibration of the software from multiple control

modules, including the ABS Control Module, such that they are prone to activating

the brakes when there are no objects in front of the vehicle and/or behind the vehicle

when it is backing up. The AEB systems also sometimes fail entirely to activate

when there are persons or objects in motion in front of the vehicle. This occurs due

to miscommunication between all the systems involved in automatic braking,

including the sensors, the brakes, and the transmission (the “AEB System Defect”).

The AEB System Defect prevents the AEB Class Vehicles from behaving as

designed and advertised in real-world driving conditions.



As a result of the AEB System Defect, AEB Class Vehicles will

abruptly slow down or stop entirely without driver input when there are no obstacles

Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 5 of 187 PageID: 5

in front of or behind the vehicle. This presents a clear-cut safety hazard, increasing

the chances of a collision.



Conversely, the AEB System also fails to activate in the situations it

was designed to detect and mitigate, such as when a pedestrian or vehicle stops

abruptly in front of or behind the AEB Class Vehicle. Thus, the AEB System Defect

makes the AEB System unpredictable and makes driving the vehicle unsafe. At the

same time, the defect renders the system useless when it is most needed.



The Lane Keep Assist feature is also defective. Subaru also failed to

disclose to Plaintiffs and the members of the LKA Class, before or at the time of

sale, that the Lane Keep Assist feature in LKA Class Vehicles has design,

manufacturing and/or workmanship defects including but not limited to poor

calibration of the software from multiple control modules, including the Power

Steering Control Module, such that they attempt to correct the vehicle’s steering

when the driver is trying to change lanes, is driving on a road with construction

barriers, or if the road has multiple lines due to construction. Further, the Lane Keep

Assist system will malfunction and shut down entirely while the vehicle is motion

and cannot be used again until the car is restarted (the “LKA Defect” and, together

with the AEB System Defect, the “Defects”). The LKA Defect prevents the Class

Vehicles from behaving as designed and advertised in real-world driving conditions.

Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 6 of 187 PageID: 6



As a result of the LKA Defect, the Lane Keep Assist system in the LKA

Class Vehicles jerks the steering wheel without cause. Moreover, the system

prevents the vehicle from change lanes and even steers the vehicle into other

vehicles. On other occasions, it simply fails to function completely. Thus, the LKA

Defect makes the Lane Keep Assist feature makes driving the vehicle unsafe and the

operation of vehicle unpredictable for members of the LKA Class.



Based on pre-production testing, including design failure mode

analysis, quality monitoring team data, quality control audits, early warranty claims,

replacement part orders, and consumer complaints to Subaru’s authorized network

of dealers, as well complaints to NHTSA, Defendants were aware of the Defects in

the Class Vehicles as early as 2012. Despite being aware of the Defects and

numerous complaints, Subaru knowingly, actively, and affirmatively failed to

disclose the Defects. Further, Defendants actively concealed the existence of the

Defects, including in advertising and manuals, which describe the EyeSight, “Pre-

Collision Braking”, Reverse Automatic Braking Systems and Lane Keep Assist.

Defendants did this to increase profits by selling additional Class Vehicles at inflated

prices.

Settled



See: Subaru EyeSight Settlement