Penalty Amount
$149,673,750
Consumers Affected
211,000
Environmental and consumer protection enforcement action where Mercedes-Benz USA agreed to a nearly $150 million settlement for installing emissions defeat devices in diesel vehicles and misleading consumers about their environmental compliance. The settlement includes significant consumer relief and practice reforms.
Mercedes-Benz USA must pay $120 million to the states, with $29,673,750 suspended pending consumer relief. They must provide extended warranties and $2,000 payments to affected consumers, install emission modifications, and refrain from deceptive marketing.
In-house legal teams should review all vehicle sales contracts, lease agreements, and dealer distribution agreements for clauses related to emissions compliance warranties, marketing representations regarding environmental performance, and disclosures about vehicle software or modifications. Specific clauses to scrutinize include those guaranteeing compliance with emissions standards, restrictions on defeat devices, recall procedures, and remedies for misrepresentation. Given the settlement's focus on undisclosed defeat devices and misleading 'environmentally-friendly' claims, contracts may need amendments to explicitly warrant against such devices, require pre-approval of environmental marketing claims, and incorporate enhanced disclosure obligations for any emissions-related software. Additionally, agreements should address coordination for consumer relief programs, such as the $2,000 per vehicle restitution and extended warranties mandated by the settlement.
Entity
Mercedes-Benz USA
Also known as: Mercedes-Benz
Industry
Automotive"Mercedes-Benz USA"
"$149,673,750 settlement"
"violating state laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices"
"vehicles equipped with illegal and undisclosed emissions defeat devices"
The provided press release is a media release from the Oregon Department of Justice announcing a multistate press conference of attorneys general from Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and New York advocating for increased state resources to address antitrust enforcement gaps following reduced federal oversight. No privacy-related enforcement actions, violations, penalties, or remedies are described in the document.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Consumer protection and civil rights lawsuit filed by Oregon AG and 20 other states against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over unlawful funding conditions that coerce states into complying with policies unrelated to nutrition programs. The conditions relate to immigration, DEI, and gender identity, and are alleged to violate the Spending Clause and Administrative Procedure Act. The suit seeks to block these conditions to protect billions in funding for programs like SNAP, WIC, and school lunches that serve vulnerable populations.
Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
Antitrust enforcement action where Oregon AG filed a lawsuit to block the $6.2 billion merger of Nexstar and Tegna, alleging it violates Clayton Act Section 7 by substantially lessening competition in broadcasting, which could harm local news and raise consumer prices.
Environmental enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, along with a coalition of states and cities, filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA's unlawful rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge argues that the rescission ignores scientific evidence and legal precedent, threatening public health and environmental protections.