The within proposed automotive defect multi-jurisdictional class proceeding involves certain model and model year Bayerishce Motoren Werke (“BMW”)-brand vehicles, defined below as “Affected Class Vehicles”, engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied, leased and/or sold by the Defendants, BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG (“BMW AG”), BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC (“BMW NA”), and BMW CANADA INC. (“BMW Canada”), that are equipped with a defective electrical starter which is increasingly susceptible to premature failure. In particular, the electrical starter suffers from a design and/or manufacturing defect whereby the pinion gear in the electrical starters either fails to extend to engage the ring gear on the flywheel, or the pinion gear extends but has worn teeth that prevent proper engagement and rotation of the flywheel, preventing the engine from starting (the “Electrical Starter Defect”).

As a result of the Electrical Starter Defect, repeated and continuous cranking of the electrical starter can cause internal electrical components to overheat, due to friction and excessive heat, potentially combusting or igniting the surrounding acoustic shielding, thereby posing a real, substantial, and imminent risk of harm, injury, and/or death to vehicle occupants as a result of fire and related damage.

“Affected Class Vehicles” include, but are not limited to, the following model year BMW-brand vehicles equipped with a defective electrical starter:

BMW 340i (2020)

BMW 740Li (2020 - 2022)

BMW 840i (2020 - 2025)

BMW X5 (2019 - 2020)

BMW X6 (2020)

BMW X7 (2019 - 2020)

The Defendants have unsuccessfully attempted to remedy the Electrical Starter Defect on two occasions. First, in a recall issued in August 2024 by government vehicle safety regulators, including Transport Canada and the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), the Defendants implemented a software update that failed to remedy or fix the defect. Second, in a subsequent recall issued in September 2025 by Transport Canada and NHTSA, the Defendants purported to offer a remedy consisting of the replacement of the electrical starter with a “different design”; however, the Defendants have advised that this “Remedy is Unavailable.” As a result, the Electrical Starter Defect remains unresolved.

The Defendants purported remedies for the Electrical Starter Defect under these vehicle recalls are only a band-aid and fail to adequately cure or remedy the Electrical Starter Defect, while also failing to reimburse vehicle owners and/or lessees for out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use, or loss of value of the Affected Class Vehicles. The proposed remedy under the second recall is also not readily available, so Affected Class Vehicle owners and/or lessees are left without a safe operable vehicle for unknown and often lengthy periods of time.

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

Prior to selling and/or leasing the Affected Class Vehicles, the Defendants knew that the vehicles were defective yet omitted and concealed this material fact from the Plaintiff and putative class members. Rigorous pre-release durability testing made the Defendants aware of the Electrical Starter Defect. The Defendants were further aware of the Electrical Starter Defect through warranty or replacement starter claims, widespread consumer complaints and discussions on internet forums and message boards devoted to the Affected Class Vehicles, as well as through complaints submitted directly to Transport Canada and/or NHTSA, all of which the Defendants monitor and review.

Despite that knowledge and duty, the Defendants have repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the Electrical Starter Defect from putative class members and consumers, and continued to market and represent the Affected Class Vehicles as safe, reliable and durable vehicles which, as a result of the Electrical Starter Defect, they are not.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unfair, misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in failing to disclose the Electrical Starter 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 Electrical Starter Defect significantly diminishes the value of the Affected Class Vehicles; (iii) have Affected Class Vehicles that are unsafe, unreliable and dangerous in their operation; (iv) have Affected Class Vehicles that have significantly reduced re-sale value; and/or (v) must expend significant money to have their Affected Class Vehicles repaired.

The Plaintiff and putative class members have purchased and/or leased Affected Class Vehicles that they would not have otherwise purchased and/or leased, or would have paid less for, had they known of the Electrical Starter Defect at the point of sale and/or lease. The Plaintiff and putative class members have consequently suffered ascertainable losses and actual damages as a result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

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.

No reasonable consumer would have purchased and/or leased an Affected Class Vehicle had the Defendants made full and complete disclosure of the Electrical Starter Defect or would have paid a lesser price. 

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.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for all other owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles with the Electrical Starter Defect, including, inter alia, recovery of damages, repair under various provincial consumer protection legislation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repair of the Affected Class Vehicles