Court Rules
All enforcement actions
InvestigationLow RiskMultistate

Connecticut AG Investigates Hyundai Kia for Anti-Theft Immobilizer Failures

Hyundai and KiaJune 20, 2023Connecticut Attorney General

Summary

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong launched a consumer protection investigation into Hyundai and Kia for failing to equip vehicles with standard anti-theft immobilizers between 2011 and 2022, leading to high theft rates and public safety concerns. The investigation seeks records on the companies' decision-making and potential fixes, following a coalition of attorneys general calling for a federal recall.

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with parts suppliers to ensure contracts include specifications for anti-theft immobilizers and compliance with industry safety standards. Customer agreements, such as dealer contracts and end-user warranties, should be examined for clauses on product safety, recall obligations, and warranty coverage for theft-related damages. Specific clauses to focus on include product specification clauses, safety compliance warranties, recall notification procedures, and indemnification provisions. Changes may be necessary to incorporate mandatory anti-theft technology requirements, update warranty terms to address theft vulnerabilities, and strengthen recall coordination mechanisms to mitigate public safety risks.

Contract Search Terms

anti-theft immobilizerengine immobilizerrecall clausewarranty coverageproduct safety standarddefect notification

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Hyundai and Kia

Also known as: Hyundai, Kia

Industry

Automotive

Multistate Coalition

Coalition of 18 attorneys general

Official Sources

Related Enforcement Actions

NJ

Hyundai and Kia

$4.5M

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced a multistate settlement with Hyundai and Kia over the sale of millions of U.S. vehicles lacking industry-standard anti-theft engine immobilizer technology, which contributed to a surge in auto thefts. The settlement requires the manufacturers to equip all future U.S.-sold vehicles with immobilizers, offer free ignition cylinder protectors to eligible owners, provide up to $4.5 million in consumer restitution for theft damage, and pay $4.5 million to the coalition states. The 36-state coalition is led by Connecticut, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, with New Jersey as a co-lead.

OR

Hyundai and Kia

$4.5M

Consumer protection case where Hyundai and Kia settled for selling millions of vehicles without industry-standard anti-theft technology, leading to a nationwide surge in thefts and public safety risks. The settlement requires free hardware fixes for affected vehicles and restitution for consumers.

CT

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of states and local governments in filing suit against NHTSA over its rule weakening fuel economy standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. The lawsuit alleges the rule violates the agency’s statutory mandate and the Administrative Procedure Act; no penalty or final remedy is reported.

CT

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a multistate coalition suing the EPA over its repeal of greenhouse gas pollution limits for power plants and separately filed a notice of intent to sue over regulation of existing gas plants. The coalition asks the court to overturn the repeal and restore the protections; the release reports no monetary penalty or final order.

CT

Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc.

$400.0M

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a $400 million settlement with Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. resolving allegations that the generic drug manufacturers conspired to inflate prices, limit competition, and restrain trade. The settlement includes consumer restitution and injunctive reforms; court approval was being sought.

CT

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to removal proceedings without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law and harms asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children; this was a policy opposition letter, not a privacy enforcement action.