[MarciHaskell]

My dealer Bellevue Jaguar put it on my car without telling me, and I didn’t know it would only charge to 80% until drove 100 miles home, plugged in and found out the next morning when it said fully charged at 80%. I was upset to say the least. I immediately called the dealer to make yet another appointment to get another module replaced (thinking incorrectly that was the problem) and that is when she told me they put in a temporary fix for the battery. I reminded her that when the letter came out from Jaguar USA offering three choices, I chose “new battery.” I had told them at the time the letter came out. She said they were required to put this temporary fix on it and that I would be contacted when the permanent fix is released.
I want to be part of any class action lawsuit that is being brought against them.

 

[Vinsuz]

… She said they were required to put this temporary fix on it and that I would be contacted when the permanent fix is released.

Marci, be careful posting personal information online. Beyond that, if you are under H484 then be patient. People are getting their battery packs replaced albeit slowly. The charging limit is for your protection (and more importantly their liability exposure).

 

[rslvid]

Marci, be careful posting personal information online. Beyond that, if you are under H484 then be patient. People are getting their battery packs replaced albeit slowly. The charging limit is for your protection (and more importantly their liability exposure).

I agree with the personal info posting, but as for the other H484 issue, even with a new battery pack installed they will STILL limit your charging to 80% (as in my case) as per the H514 recall! It does not make sense.

 

[Vinsuz]

Well Marci must have raised a stink! Recall H529, issued 12/12, calls for repurchasing all affected 2019 I Paces.

 

[ITLBFUN4U]

If the remedy is a new battery, then that would be fair. Not looking for money here, just a car that drives the 100% range that is was advertised to go. The 80% temporary fix has me thinking a class action lawsuit may be necessary for us Washington State owners. My 2019 iPace won’t even make it to dealer in Bellevue and back home on a full charge since they put that “temporary fix” on it (without asking me for permission to do so) a month ago. A class action law suit sounds about right.

That's all I want. But jaguar flat out lies. Says there are no more batteries to replace mine. The dealer said they have spares but corporate said not to replace it. They offered me a buy back of 30k. I don't want a buyback. I just finished paying off my 89k 2019 car. It only has 13k miles on it. The batteries cost 38k to replace and if they buy back at 30k the save 8k per car. Or more if people don't push it the way I have. I had the cpa behind me 2 weeks ago, but now that they have been disbanded by this current president, I got a notice that they regrettably have to close my claim. The only way to force a company to comply with laws now is to sue them personally. The consumer affairs division of the attorney general's office is cut as well. We consumers are in for a World of hurt. Ugh

 

[ITLBFUN4U]

I just had a new battery replacement pack installed (12/12/24 - full pack, not just some cells) in my 2019 under the H484 recall. Now restricted to 80% charging cap, before it's even out of the shop. JLR is no help. No H514 recall in Topix, or software/firmware update was requested by me. I'm currently putting up a fight and won't pick up the car until it charges the new battery to 100%...

Im fighting as well. They refuse to replace my battery and will only offer me 30k on the 89k car I just paid off this month. I'm sick to my stomach

 

[ITLBFUN4U]

Well Marci must have raised a stink! Recall H529, issued 12/12, calls for repurchasing all affected 2019 I Paces.

They are buying mine back. At 30k. I'm sick to my stomach as I literally made my last car payment on my 89k loan this month. my car only has 13k miles on it.

 

[epirali]

I will refuse a $30k buyback and will force litigation if I have to. My car has no issues, and I like it and have use for it. I would take a $30k compensation to sign a waiver or release and keep my car.

 

[ITLBFUN4U]

Apparently you have to be a resident to be in on the class action suits. How stupid is that. They have to litigate these separately? Ugh. Doesn't have the impact it would if they allowed us all to be represented together. One hasn't been started in Delaware, my home state, so no attorney wants to take it up. Sad.. never buying another jlr again and they have received a few hundred k from me over the years. Love my defender as well, but I'm done supporting this company that doesn't give a s$#@ about me or any customer.

 

[Time2Roll]

They are buying mine back. At 30k. I'm sick to my stomach as I literally made my last car payment on my 89k loan this month. my car only has 13k miles on it.

Yes I am sick about it too. Your $4.50 cost per mile is insane.

 

[millbankhomes]

My dealer Bellevue Jaguar put it on my car without telling me, and I didn’t know it would only charge to 80% until drove 100 miles home, plugged in and found out the next morning when it said fully charged at 80%. I was upset to say the least. I immediately called the dealer to make yet another appointment to get another module replaced (thinking incorrectly that was the problem) and that is when she told me they put in a temporary fix for the battery. I reminded her that when the letter came out from Jaguar USA offering three choices, I chose “new battery.” I had told them at the time the letter came out. She said they were required to put this temporary fix on it and that I would be contacted when the permanent fix is released. I want to be part of any class action lawsuit that is being brought against them.

Im fighting as well. They refuse to replace my battery and will only offer me 30k on the 89k car I just paid off this month. I'm sick to my stomach

Keep me posted as I have 20k miles on mine and its flawless. Not taking half of what I paid for and think a few of us need to pool together and hire an attorney likely. The 80% battery fix and told to park the car outside and just wait is just a long list of issues with my 2019 iPace.

 

[Brendon]

Looks like Jag just racked up a loss on this one. Their primary argument was dismissed, allowing this suit (and others) to proceed. I don't have a Law360 account, so I don't have access to the full text:

Law360 (March 3, 2025, 7:49 PM EST) -- Jaguar can't evade claims it sold thousands of electric vehicles with batteries prone to catching fire, a New Jersey federal judge ruled Monday, saying the argument that buyers expect and even price in these kinds of issues at the time of purchase "defies everyday experience."

 

[wigmo]

Full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_23-cv-04281/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_23-cv-04281-1.pdf

 

[Brendon]

Here's the full text of the article I referenced above:

Law360 (March 3, 2025, 7:49 PM EST) -- Jaguar can't evade claims it sold thousands of electric vehicles with batteries prone to catching fire, a New Jersey federal judge ruled Monday, saying the argument that buyers expect and even price in these kinds of issues at the time of purchase "defies everyday experience."

U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz appears to have not thought highly of some of Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC's arguments for why the proposed class of EV drivers had failed to plead economic harm. Specifically, it appeared the automaker was insisting that there was actually no real gap between what the drivers paid for and what they actually received because consumers know what to expect when they get a new vehicle, "a possibly defective car" or "a possibly dishonored warranty," the judge said.

"This argument, if it is indeed being made, runs aground on common sense," Judge Farbiarz said.

"It defies everyday experience to think that car customers would shrug at serious alleged defects or dishonored warranties because they expected them in some way all along, and paid a lower price accordingly," he added.

The order largely denied Jaguar's motion seeking to dismiss the case, finding that the drivers had adequately alleged standing, injury-in-fact and breaches of warranty under both state and federal law. The court also rejected the preemption argument, holding that the Safety Act does not preempt state-law warranty claims.

In a suit launched in August 2023, the Jaguar drivers accused the car company of having sold thousands of defective Jaguar I-Pace cars between 2019 and 2023, even though it knew of battery fires involving the EV model since at least 2019. Despite this knowledge, the car manufacturer didn't issue a safety recall until Aug. 3, 2023, according to the drivers' complaint.

Jaguar moved to dismiss the case in February 2024, arguing the car owners do not have standing as they didn't actually suffer any out-of-pocket costs because the automaker offered to fix the issue for free through a recall. While an amended complaint alleged the recall didn't actually resolve the problem, Jaguar contended in a motion to dismiss that this is a "conclusory allegation" that the drivers have never supported through evidence.

The drivers claim that they never received the "benefit-of-the bargain" in their purchase, partly because the vehicles have suffered diminished resale value.

In November, Judge Farbiarz instructed Jaguar and the proposed class of EV owners to file briefs explaining what impact a then-newly issued Third Circuit's ruling — Huertas et al. v. Bayer US LLC — would have the present product liability litigation against the automaker.

The Judge Farbiarz request was clearly tied to how the appeals court ruled on economic injury claims. Specifically, the panel in Huertas overturned a New Jersey federal judge's order dismissing antifungal spray litigation brought against pharmaceutical company Bayer.

When siding with the plaintiffs, the three-judge appellate panel noted that the consumers relied on the "benefit-of-the-bargain theory to establish injury-in-fact, arguing that they paid full purchase price for products 'free of contaminants and dangerous substances,' but received products that were defectively manufactured."

When responding to Judge Farbiarz's request, Jaguar explained that the antifungal spray at issue was unlike its vehicles because its EVs didn't suffer from a defect so severe that they couldn't be used. Additionally, the automaker said that "vehicle purchasers reasonably expect" recalls because they are issued so regularly in the United States, according to a letter it sent to the judge in November.

But Judge Farbiarz rejected this, saying that consumers do price in wear and tear, but there is no reason to believe they would price in such large alleged defects.

"And even if customers do discount what they are willing to pay for a car based on their estimate as to the odds that the car will later turn out to be defective — why does it make sense to think that customers discount cars precisely the right amount upfront, so that when things later go awry everything ends up just-so, and it turns out, looking back, that the customers did not actually overpay?" the judge asked.

The drivers are represented by Robert A. Magnanini of Stone & Magnanini LLP.

Jaguar is represented by Michael L. Kidney of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Read more at: Jaguar Can't Shirk Warranty Claims In EV Battery Fire Suit - Law360

 

[Gelbkreutz]

Full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_23-cv-04281/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_23-cv-04281-1.pdf

Incredibly well written. Totally plain English.

 

[mjpsammon]

Motion to dismiss was denied. Plaintiffs haven't won the case yet. Am I reading this correctly?

 

[sciencegeek]

That's how I'm reading it too.

 

[Brendon]

Motion to dismiss was denied. Plaintiffs haven't won the case yet. Am I reading this correctly?

Yep, exactly. So the class action is moving forward.

 

[Gelbkreutz]

Yep, exactly. So the class action is moving forward.

Class action - was it just two people?

 

[Brendon]

Class action - was it just two people?

The article only names a single claimant. But the class action is currently aimed to represent all 2019-2024 owners based in California.
However, it wouldn't surprise me to see it broaden out to other states if it is successful. California has pretty strong consumer protection laws which may be coming into play, but I suspect any verdict that JLR was not forthright in their handling/messaging of the battery issues could have implications nationally.