The within proposed multi-jurisdictional automotive defect class proceeding involves 2019-2022 Nissan Leaf Electric Vehicles (“EVs”) (the “Affected Class Vehicles”) engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied, sold and/or leased by the Defendants, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (“Nissan Japan”), Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan NA”), and/or Nissan Canada Inc. (“Nissan Canada”), in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, equipped with a defective high-voltage traction lithium-ion battery that is prone to overheating and short-circuiting, particularly during Level 3 Direct Current (DC) fast charging via the CHAdeMO connector, resulting in potential melting of charging components, electrical damage, and fire, so as to pose a real, substantial, and imminent risk of harm and/or injury to vehicle occupants, others on the road, and/or property damage (the “Battery Defect”).

In particular, the Battery Defect arises from the formation of excessive lithium deposits on the battery’s anode, which contributes to the unstable development of a byproduct known as the solid electrolyte interphase (“SEI”). Unstable SEI formation can lead to the growth of lithium dendrites, which can cause swelling of the battery cells and/or compromise the separator between the anode and cathode. These conditions increase internal electrical resistance and can lead to internal heating or short-circuiting, particularly during Level 3 DC fast charging.

The Defendants’ purported remedy for the Battery Defect is a software update that monitors high-voltage battery operating conditions, including the battery’s state of charge and potential thermal events. The software update, which is still in development, is only offered to a select “focus group,” and is not available to all owners and lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles, does not remedy or fix the Battery Defect. Rather, the update is intended only to detect certain hazardous battery operating conditions and, in some circumstances, may disable vehicle operation to prevent a thermal event.

The Defendants have instructed the Plaintiff and putative class members not to use Level 3 DC fast charging until the recall remedy is completed.

The software update does not remedy the Battery Defect, and the defect deprives the Plaintiff and putative class members of a key feature of the Affected Class Vehicles—Level 3 DC fast charging—for which they paid a premium. The only adequate remedy is the replacement of the defective high-voltage battery with a non-defective unit, or a buyback of the Affected Class Vehicles.

At all relevant times, the Defendants knew, or ought to have known, about the Battery Defect as evidenced by, inter alia: (i) consumer complaints lodged with American and Canadian government vehicle safety regulators, including the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), Transport Canada, and elsewhere online; (ii) warranty claims, part sales, consumer complaints, and vehicle buyback requests lodged with the Defendants directly; (iii) safety recall campaigns elating to the Battery Defect issued by the Defendants r; and (iv) the Defendants own pre-sale durability testing of the Affected Class Vehicles.

The Defendants have exclusive knowledge of, and have been in exclusive possession of, facts and/or information pertaining to the Battery Defect, which were material to the Plaintiff and putative class members, who could not have reasonably known of the Battery Defect. Under the circumstances, the Defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose the Battery Defect at the point of sale and/or lease of the Affected Class Vehicles to putative class members and consumers.

Despite that knowledge and duty, the Defendants have repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the Battery Defect from putative class members and consumers and continued to market and represent the Affected Class Vehicles as safe, durable, and reliable vehicles.

In engineering, designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, marketing, distributing, supplying, leasing and/or selling the Affected Class Vehicles, the Defendants have engaged in unfair, deceptive, and/or misleading consumer practices, and further have breached their express warranties.

The Plaintiff and putative class members expected that the Defendants would disclose, and not actively conceal, material facts about the existence of any defect that will result in expensive and non-ordinary repairs. The Defendants failed to do so.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unfair, misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in failing to disclose the Battery Defect, the Plaintiff and putative class members: (i) overpaid for the Affected Class Vehicles, either through a higher purchase price and/or lease payments; (ii) overpaid for the Affected Class Vehicles as the Battery Defect significantly diminishes the value of the Affected Class Vehicles; (iii) have Affected Class Vehicles that are unsafe, unreliable and dangerous in their operation; and (iv) have Affected Class Vehicles that have significantly reduced re-sale value.

The Plaintiff and putative class members purchased or leased Affected Class Vehicles that they would not have purchased and/or leased, or would have paid less for, had the Defendants disclosed the Battery Defect.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all owners and lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles seeking, inter alia, damages, rescission or restitution, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief, including repair or replacement of the defective high-voltage battery and reimbursement of costs associated with the Battery Defect.