![]() After discovery closed, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence in support of their claimed overpayment injury when faced with a motion to dismiss challenging their Article III standing. ![]() While discovery proceeded, the original trial judge overseeing the case retired, and the case was reassigned. The plaintiffs argued that, although the alleged defect never manifested again after the hack described in the magazine, they paid more for their vehicles than they would have if they had known about the cybersecurity vulnerability. Federal regulators supervising the recall determined that the patch eliminated the vulnerability.įour plaintiffs sued the manufacturer and the designer of the infotainment system on behalf of every consumer who had purchased or leased 2013–2015 vehicles from the same manufacturer equipped with the same system, asserting federal and state warranty and consumer-fraud claims. ![]() The vehicle’s manufacturer immediately issued a recall and provided a free software update to patch the vulnerability. FCA US LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.Ī magazine article described a controlled hack of a vehicle that exploited a vulnerability in the vehicle’s “infotainment” system. Instead, they must provide evidence of a legally cognizable injury in fact.Ī copy of the opinion in Flynn v. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that, when litigation moves beyond the pleading stage and Article III standing is challenged as a factual matter, plaintiffs cannot rely on mere allegations of injury. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a class-action lawsuit at the summary judgment stage for lack of Article III standing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |