Settlement Reached in Class Action Over Subaru Infotainment System Includes $1.5M Fee
Lawyers are seeking approval of a settlement that they say will provide car owners and lessees with benefits valued at more than $6.25 million in litigation over the automaker's allegedly defective Starlink infotainment system.
September 10, 2019 at 11:08 AM
5 minute read
Lawyers in a putative, nationwide class action against Subaru are seeking approval of a settlement that they say will provide car owners and lessees with benefits valued at more than $6.25 million in litigation over the automaker's allegedly defective Starlink infotainment system.
The 113-page motion for preliminary approval was submitted on Aug. 30 by counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, who would be paid $1.5 million in fees and costs if the settlement is approved.
The case involves the 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018 Subaru Forester, 2018 Subaru Legacy, 2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2017-2018 Subaru Imprezas, and 2018 Subaru BRZ.
Under terms of the settlement, owners and lessees of those vehicles could be compensated based on multiple visits to a Subaru dealer for a Starlink repair or complaint ($150 for two visits, $300 for three or more visits—or, at the class member's election, vouchers that can be used for Subaru service, apparel, or a new vehicle).
It also provides for compensation at the rate of $16 per day during the period of time when Starlink replacement head units were on back order. About 9,590 class members fall into this category, according to the documents, which estimate the value of that component of the settlement at $2.08 million.
Also, class members who incurred expenses not covered by a voluntary Starlink recall could be refunded up to $90 for costs of alternative transportation.
Subaru continues to issue software updates to address ongoing product development, and agreed to extend the warranty applicable to the Starlink system from three years/36,000 miles to five years/100,000 miles, the documents said.
In addition, Subaru has agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $1.5 million, and incentive awards to each of the seven class representatives of $3,500.
"We're pleased with the settlement," said Benjamin Johns of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner and Donaldson-Smith in Haverford, Pennsylvania, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "We think it's a very good result for the class, and we look forward to seeking the court's approval."
Johns worked with Andrew Ferich of the same firm, Kevin Roddy of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, and Daniel Lapinski of Motley Rice in Cherry Hill.
Subaru's attorney, Neal Walters of Ballard Spahr's Cherry Hill office, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Johns said if the motion is granted, it will trigger notice to go to the class, and class members will have a chance to respond to the settlement and submit claims. A final settlement hearing would be held afterward, and the judge would determine whether to grant final approval for the settlement.
Reaching the settlement included two mediation sessions on May 6 and 14 with retired Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, counsel at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, according to the court filing.
The case was initiated by consumers who purchased or leased one of the class vehicles equipped with the Subaru Starlink system, which consists of a touchscreen multimedia interface in the front-center console. Starlink is designed to provide the display for the backup camera, as well as an interface for making telephone calls, using the GPS navigation system, and accessing radio controls.
The suit claimed numerous malfunctions, including that the backup camera freezes or shuts down; audio and radio functions fail; the display shuts off even though functions of the infotainment system remain working; and the radio will not shut off or turn down when backing up. Malfunctions with navigation and Bluetooth calls also were alleged.
Subaru denied the allegations, and didn't admit fault in the settlement agreement.
The suit originally was filed in Camden County Superior Court in November 2018, and it was removed to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey the next month.
Subaru previously moved to dismiss and sought to stay all discovery, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider last March denied Subaru's motion to stay full discovery.
"Defendants' concern about 'extremely expensive' discovery is overblown," Schneider said at the time. "As is always the case, the court expects to closely manage discovery to assure that plaintiffs' efforts are proportional. Further, contrary to defendants' argument, a discovery stay will not simplify the issues for trial. In fact, the opposite is true."
Schneider, referencing Chalames v. OKI Data Americas, a U.S. District Court of New Jersey decision from 2007, said, "the mere filing of a motion to dismiss does not stay discovery."
Subaru is a Japanese corporation. Subaru of America was founded in 1968 in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, and the following year moved to Pennsauken. The company's headquarters were located in Cherry Hill from 1986 until 2018, when they moved to the Camden waterfront after the city offered an incentive package that included a $118 million tax break.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllVolkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
3 minute readLack of Available Auto Safety Features Does Not Equal Products Liability Act Violation, NJ Appeals Court Says
4 minute readClass-Action Suit Filed Against Jaguar for Claims of Defective Windshields in Land Rover Defender
Law Firm Accused of Raiding Trust Account to Pay for Fraudster's Birthday Party, Expenses
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250