Subaru of America Inc. has asked a federal court in New Jersey to dismiss a proposed nationwide class action challenging alleged defects in its driver-assistance technology. The automaker argues that the named plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged an actionable malfunction or injury. The suit focuses on Subaru’s EyeSight automatic emergency braking (AEB) and lane-keep assist (LKA) features, which plaintiffs say can activate unexpectedly, fail to activate when anticipated, resist lane changes, or shut down. Subaru contends the complaint relies on limited, non-injurious incidents, conflicts with information provided to vehicle owners, and fails to establish claims that would support classwide relief.
Motion to Dismiss Targets Lack of Malfunction and Continued Vehicle Use
In a motion filed Tuesday, Subaru urged the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, emphasizing that the named plaintiffs, Alexander Hall of Maine and Laurene Germano of Virginia, continue to use their vehicles. Subaru argues that Hall and Germano describe only a small number of minor incidents involving 2024 Forester and Crosstrek models, none of which resulted in accidents or injuries or caused them to stop driving their vehicles. According to Subaru, those allegations undermine key theories of defect and damages.
Subaru further argues that the complaint does not identify a specific defect and instead advances broad allegations involving software and programming issues without explaining the precise malfunction at issue. The company maintains that the allegations are too vague to provide a sufficient basis for defending against the claims. Subaru also challenged Germano’s standing to pursue claims involving LKA, asserting that she never used the feature or reported experiencing a problem with it.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations Focus on Isolated AEB Events and Broader System Claims
Hall and Germano filed their complaint May 11, alleging that EyeSight’s AEB sometimes activates unexpectedly or fails to activate when they believe it should. They also allege that LKA may resist lane changes or shut down and assert that similar issues affect Subaru’s Legacy, Outback, Ascent, and other models. Subaru’s motion emphasizes the limited number of incidents involving the named plaintiffs compared with the broad scope of the proposed class claims.
Hall alleges two instances of unexpected braking over two years. Germano describes a single event in which her vehicle slowed from 40 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour. Subaru argues that the absence of any accident, injury, or discontinued use weighs against the claim that the vehicles were defective or unfit. The company also maintains that the complaint’s broader assertions about system failures are not supported by sufficiently specific factual allegations.
Disclosures, Warranty Arguments, and Challenges to Nationwide Class Allegations
Subaru argues that the operating limitations plaintiffs characterize as concealed defects were disclosed to vehicle owners. Those disclosures identify circumstances in which AEB may activate unexpectedly, including when passing through automatic gates, driving close to certain objects, encountering poor visibility from sand, smoke, or water vapor, traveling through steam or smoke, driving in heavy snow or other adverse weather, or stopping very close to a wall or another vehicle.
Subaru also states that AEB and LKA can be turned off with a single button. The company notes that Hall does not allege that he attempted to disable AEB and continues to drive his vehicle with the feature available.
On the fraudulent omission claims, Subaru argues that information provided to consumers disclosed that EyeSight may not perform optimally under every driving condition, undermining allegations that the company concealed the systems’ limitations. Subaru also challenges the implied warranty claims, arguing that plaintiffs have not shown their vehicles were unmerchantable when sold and did not provide the required presuit notice.
The company further contends that the unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs continue to use their vehicles and have not adequately alleged an actionable defect. Subaru, represented by Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, also asked the court to dismiss the nationwide class allegations. It argues that the law of the state where each vehicle was purchased should govern and that applying New Jersey law to buyers in other states could conflict with those states’ policies.
Case Posture and What the Court Will Consider Next
The case is captioned Hall et al. v. Subaru of America Inc., case number 1:26-cv-05266, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Subaru’s motion raises threshold issues common to automotive defect class actions, including whether plaintiffs have pleaded a cognizable defect with sufficient factual specificity and whether product limitations disclosed to consumers can support omission-based claims.
Hall and Germano are represented by Andrew W. Ferich and Sarper Unal of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC and A. Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm. Subaru is represented by Homer B. Ramsey, Michael B. Gallub, and Daniel W. Robertson of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. The court’s ruling on the motion will determine whether the case proceeds beyond the pleading stage and, if so, which claims and potential class allegations remain.
