The within proposed automotive defect multi-jurisdictional class proceeding involves certain model and model year Hyundai-, Genesis- and Kia-brand vehicles, defined below as “Affected Class Vehicles”, engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied, leased and/or sold by the Defendants, Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. (“HACC”), Hyundai Motor Company (“HMC”), Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (“HMA”), Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama LLC (“HMMA”), Kia Canada Inc. (“KCI”), Kia Motors Corporation (“KMC”), Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), and Kia Georgia, Inc. (“KGI”), in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, equipped with a defective Internal Charging Control Unit (“ICCU”), which charges the vehicle’s battery and powers the low-voltage accessory equipment, that is prone to inevitable failure when subjected to voltage and/or thermal stress (the “ICCU Defect”).

In particular, the ICCU Defect arises from the use of inadequate internal power transistors, within the ICCU, that fail: (i) upon voltage stress; and/or (ii) from thermal stress due to a faulty cooling system that is prone to rupture and leakage. The failure of the internal power transistors short-circuits the ICCU, resulting in a blown fuse, thereby cutting off electrical power to the vehicle’s essential components, including, inter alia, the 12-volt battery and the high-voltage traction battery pack, causing a loss of motive power so as to create a real, substantial, and imminent risk of harm, injury, and/or death to vehicle occupants.

“Affected Class Vehicles” include, but are not limited to, the following model year Hyundai-, Genesis-, and Kia-brand vehicles designed, manufactured and/or assembled by the Defendants, HMC, HMMA, KMC, and/or KGI, and marketed, advertised, distributed, sold and/or leased by the Defendants, HACC, HMC, HMA, KCI, KMC and/or KMA, in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, equipped with a defective ICCU:

HYUNDAI & KIA MODEL

Genesis G80 (2023-2024)

Genesis GV60 (2023-2024)

Genesis GV70 (2023-2025)

Hyundai IONIQ 5 (2022-2024)

Hyundai IONIQ 6 (2023-2025)

Kia EV6 (2022-2024)

Electric vehicles (“EVs”) require numerous components and modules to function cohesively and deliver the electrical power necessary for motive propulsion. The vehicle manufacturer Defendants have consolidated these functions into a single unit, the ICCU, which operates as the brain or gateway that manages how the Affected Class Vehicles are charged from an external power source and distributes that energy to the battery and other essential electrical components and modules within the vehicle. By merging multiple functions that would otherwise require separate power-regulating or charging modules, the ICCU has become a critical component, and any defect within it has the potential to compromise the entire electrical system of the Affected Class Vehicles.

Integral components of the ICCU include: (i) on-board charger (OBC); (ii) DC/DC (Direct Current/Direct Current) converter; (iii) control integrated circuit (IC); (iv) microcontrollers; (v) fuses; and (vi) cooling system.

Recently, there has been a rapidly increasing demand for environmentally friendly vehicles, and with the inception of EVs, efficient EV charging systems are increasingly being researched and developed by vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufacturer Defendants have undertaken this objective by designing and manufacturing their own unique ICCU.

One distinct feature of the ICCU is that it allows for two-directional, or bidirectional, flow of current that is: (i) from the vehicle to the power grid / vehicle to the load (external electrical devices) (V2G / V2L); and (ii) from the power grid to the vehicle / load to the vehicle (G2V / L2V). This design achieves more environmentally friendly charging and more efficient use of electrical power, as the bidirectional flow of current enables EVs to act as mobile batteries that store renewable energy, balance the grid, and displace fossil fuels, thereby making the overall energy system cleaner and more efficient. However, the design is significantly more complex because it requires the integration of additional electrical components.

In order to achieve this bidirectional flow of current, power transistors, specifically Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors (MOSFETs), are used in the ICCU. MOSFETs are switches that control the supply of current to the different circuits within the ICCU, for example the power factor control unit that powers the OBC, or the DC/DC converter. The ICCU in the Affected Class Vehicles uses at least two MOSFETs that connect its circuits and direct the flow of current therein.

If one or more MOSFETs fail, the fuse—serving as a failsafe to protect downstream electrical components from high voltage—blows, isolating the circuits. This isolation eliminates any active pathway for current flow, thereby cutting off electrical power to all vehicle components, resulting in a complete loss of motive power and causing a vehicle to suddenly stop without sufficient warning.

The MOSFETs can fail as a result of high-voltage surge and/or thermal stress. The ICCU in the Affected Class Vehicles is designed and/or manufactured with defective MOSFETs that are incapable of withstanding the typical voltage stress all EVs are exposed to, either from their internal components or from external sources, such as EV charging stations. Moreover, the faulty cooling system can cause leakages or increased thermal stress, which also damages the temperature sensitive MOSFETs.

At all relevant times herein to the cause of action, the Defendants knew, or ought to have known, about the ICCU Defect as evidenced by: (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, and consumer complaints lodged with the Defendants directly; (iii) current and earlier safety recalls issued by the Defendants in an attempt to remedy or fix the ICCU Defect; and (iv) the vehicle manufacturer Defendants own pre-sale durability testing of the Affected Class Vehicles.

The Defendants have twice failed to adequately and/or properly remedy or fix the ICCU Defect but instead have only provided inconsequential and unnecessary software updates that do nothing to address the underlying safety hazard. Further, replacing one defective ICCU with another equally defective ICCU perpetuates the same safety risk. The only effective remedy or fix is a complete redesign of the ICCU, which the vehicle manufacturer Defendants have knowingly failed and refused to undertake.

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

Moreover, the Defendants’ proposed diagnostic procedure is inadequate, as it fails to identify all vehicles affected by the ICCU Defect.

The Defendants have exclusive knowledge of, and have been in exclusive possession of, facts and/or information pertaining to the ICCU Defect, which were material to the Plaintiff and putative class members, who could not have reasonably known of the ICCU Defect. Under the circumstances, the Defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose the ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU 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 ICCU Defect, including, inter alia, recovery of damages, repair and/or buy back 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 and/or replacement of the Affected Class Vehicles.

This action is brought on behalf of members of a class consisting of the Plaintiff, and all other persons resident in Canada, who own, owned, lease and/or leased any one or more of the Affected Class Vehicles (“Class” or “Class Members”), excluding employees, officers, directors, agents of the Defendants and their family members, class counsel, presiding judges and any person who has commenced an individual proceeding against or delivered a release to the Defendants concerning the subject of this proceeding, or such other class definition or class period as the Court may ultimately decide on the application for certification.

Please reach out to our firm today if you believe you have one of the Affected Class vehicles that is the subject of this litigation.