Nissan LEAF battery class action lawsuit

A copy of the Nissan Leaf Battery Life False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

A federal class action lawsuit accuses Nissan of concealing that its Leaf vehicles have a design defect that causes them to prematurely lose battery life and driving range.

California Plaintiff Humberto Klee says Nissan advertises the Leaf’s driving range at 100 miles or less, depending on a number of variables such as road conditions and the weather. What Nissan doesn’t disclose in its advertising, however, is that the advertised driving range is based on the vehicle’s performance only after charging the battery to 100% capacity – which Nissan tells owners not to do because it could cause battery damage, the Nissan Leaf class action lawsuit says.

“Before purchase or lease, Nissan failed to disclose its own recommendations that owners avoid charging the battery beyond 80% in order to mitigate battery damage and failed to disclose that Nissan’s estimated 100 mile range was based on a full charge battery, which is contrary to Nissan’s own recommendation for battery charging,” the Nissan Leaf battery class action lawsuit says.

“Consumers thus were misled by Nissan’s representations regarding driving range without being aware that these ranges were only achievable by charging the battery in a manner contrary to Nissan’s own guidance.”

Nissan also failed to disclose and/or intentionally omitted to reveal a design defect in the Leaf’s battery system that causes the Leaf to suffer “widespread, severe and premature loss of driving range, battery capacity and battery life,” the class action lawsuit continues.

The Nissan Leaf class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed Class of all California and Arizona consumers who purchased or leased any 2011 through 2012 Nissan Leaf vehicle. It is asking, among other things, that Nissan remove and replace Class Members’ battery systems with a suitable alternative product, reform its Leaf battery warranty, cover the loss of battery capacity under warranty, and reimburse Class Members for any repairs made. Klee is alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act and Unfair Business Act, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of Implied Warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.