Volvo XC90 T8

January 2019: The claims against Volvo Cars of North America were voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed. The claims against Volvo Car USA remain pending.

May 2018: This lawsuit was transferred to a court in New Jersey. (Laurens et al v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC et al, Case No. 18-cv-8798, D. NJ.)

September 2017: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Laurens et al v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC et al, Case No. 16-3829, 7th Cir.)

November 2016: The named plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal.

October 2016: A federal judge dismissed this action finding that the claims were moot because the plaintiffs refused Volvo’s offer of a full refund of the purchase price upon the return of the vehicle.

April 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo Car USA for allegedly misleadingly representing that the Volvo XC90 T8 (a 7-passenger sport utility vehicle with a twin engine combining a gasoline engine and an electric motor) was capable of being driven solely on a battery charge for approximately 25 miles when, according to the complaint, the vehicle travels approximately 8 to 10 miles on a full electric charge. (Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in June 2016.) (Laurens et al v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al, Case No. 16-cv-4507, N. D. IL.)

For more information about the advertising of vehicles and TINA.org’s coverage of them, click here.