Hyundai, Kia owners seek $775 million over fuel economy fibs

Hyundai and Kia owners are suing the companies for $775 million after the EPA announced that 13 Hyundai and Kia models misstated their fuel-economy ratings, Read writes.

Petr Josek/Reuters/File
Workers assemble Kia cars in its factory in Zilina, 200 kilometres north of Bratislava in this October 2012 file photo. A new lawsuit could dramatically increase Hyundai and Kia's cost of resolving their fuel-efficiency misstatements, Read writes.

Less than a week after the Environmental Protection Agency announced that not one, not two, but 13 Hyundai and Kia models failed to meet their advertised fuel-economy ratings, a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the two Korean automakers.

According to Reuters, the suit -- which hasn't officially been granted class-action status yet -- was filed in the U.S. District Court  for Central California. The plaintiffs are 23 Hyundai and Kia owners who seek $775 million in damages.

There's more where that came from

Technically, this is the third lawsuit targeting Hyundai and Kia for inaccurate fuel-efficiencyclaims. 

Another was filed in Ohio earlier this week on behalf of three plaintiffs: one Ohio resident who purchased a 2012 Kia Rio, and a Canadian couple who now own a 2013 Hyundai Elantra. That lawsuit doesn't appear to seek class-action status, but it does ask for $5 million in damages.

And back in July, the consumer watchdog group aptly named Consumer Watchdog filed a lawsuit asking for unspecified damages on behalf of one Hyundai Elantra owner in Sacramento, California. That suit did seek class-action status, though there's no indication that's been granted.

Hyundai and Kia spokespersons have declined to comment on the new lawsuit. However, in response to the Ohio case, Hyundai's Chris Hosford said earlier this week that the automaker's proposed reimbursement program (detailed here) is the fastest and most customer-friendly way to resolve the issue.

If successful, this latest lawsuit could dramatically increase Hyundai and Kia's cost of resolving these fuel-efficiency misstatements. As we discussed on Friday, annual compensation for the 900,000 U.S. vehicles affected is conservatively estimated at $80 million -- an expenditure that will continue for as long as owners retain those vehicles.

However, Moody's Investor's Service suggests that the reimbursement plan should run closer to $100 million per year (though that figure may include an additional 172,000 Hyundai and Kia vehicles sold in Canada).

If class-action status is granted in this latest case, that would reduce Hyundai and Kia's annual burden, but the upfront cost of payouts would be enormous. And of course, not every Hyundai and Kia owner is likely to sign onto the lawsuit, meaning that if the suits prevail in court, the automakers will be making payouts on both fronts.

What's next?

  • If you own one of those models and aren't interested in the lawsuits, you can visit or to start the ball rolling on your compensation claim.
  • If you own a different Hyundai or Kia vehicle, be patient. The EPA will likely conduct audits on other models soon, and who knows what they'll turn up?
  • Last but not least, if you're shopping for a new car and have your eye on a Hyundai or Kia, Hyundai's John Krafcik says that window stickers on showroom vehicles have been amended to reflect accurate fuel economy stats. Well, at least for the 13 models included in the EPA's first audit.
You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Hyundai, Kia owners seek $775 million over fuel economy fibs
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today