— A Subaru EyeSight lawsuit alleges certain features are defective and Subaru failed to warn customers about the supposed dangers.
The affected vehicles are equipped with EyeSight driver assistance systems, with the class action specifically targeting pre-collision braking (automatic emergency braking), lane keep assist, and reverse automatic braking.
“EyeSight monitors traffic movement, optimizes cruise control, and warns you when you’re swaying outside your lane.” — Subaru
The Subaru class action lawsuit includes:
"All persons residing in the United States, including its territories, who purchased or leased, other than for resale, any of the following vehicles: 2023-2026 Subaru Legacy, Outback, and Ascent vehicles; 2024-2026 Subaru Impreza and Crosstrek vehicles; 2022-2026 Subaru Forester and WRX vehicles; and 2025-2026 BRZ vehicles."
The Subaru EyeSight lawsuit was filed by two owners who complain dealerships didn't warn them of the allegedly defective EyeSight features. Those two owners also claim Subaru knew the vehicles were defective and dangerous but covered up and concealed everything to make money by selling the vehicles.
The Subaru class action says the pre-collision braking system will engage when it shouldn't or may fail to activate when objects are behind or in front of the vehicle.
The automatic emergency braking problems are purportedly caused by "miscommunication between all the systems involved in automatic braking, including the sensors, the camera, the brakes, and the transmission."
The class action further alleges the lane keep assist feature suffers from "poor software calibration, impacting multiple control modules, including the Power Steering Control Module, such that the LKA feature resists driver input when the driver is attempting to change lanes or driving on a road with construction barriers, or malfunctions when the road has multiple lines due to construction."
Subaru's lane keep assist can also reportedly jerk the steering wheel while driving and can prevent the vehicle from changing lanes. The two plaintiffs also complain lane keep assist can steer a Subaru vehicle into other vehicles.
Subaru EyeSight Lawsuit — The Plaintiffs
Maine plaintiff Alexander Hall purchased a new 2024 Subaru Forester, but within the first year the automatic emergency braking allegedly activated without any forward objects in the road. He says one incident occurred when his Forester suddenly stopped and was almost rear-ended.
He complains the lane keep assist has also caused problems and he has been unable to use the adaptive cruise control "because the LKA will pull him off the road or into adjacent lanes when no obstructions are present."
The class action lawsuit says his Subaru dealer told him everything was working normally and he should turn off EyeSight and lane keep assist if the problems continued.
Virginia plaintiff Laurene Germano purchased a new 2024 Subaru Crosstrek that had automatic emergency braking problems where the vehicle suddenly engaged the brakes and slowed down to 15 mph. The plaintiff says she suffered minor injuries from the incident.
Plaintiff Germano complains she turns off the pre-collision assist feature every time she starts her Subaru because the dealership found no trouble codes and said there was nothing to repair.
According to the Subaru lawsuit, the plaintiffs call all the issues, "defects."
"The Defects in Class Vehicles are caused by the poor calibration of the systems, including their cameras and sensors, and faulty programming of the system control modules (particularly their ability to decide when to command other control modules including, for example, the antilock brake system control module and the TCM to apply the brakes and stop the vehicle in the middle of traffic)."
However, the lawsuit doesn't say if either plaintiff read their vehicle owner's manual or EyeSight booklet which includes dozens of warnings and limitations about the EyeSight features. Subaru emphasizes a driver is responsible for driving, and the systems may malfunction due to dozens of reasons.
Each owner's manual and booklet describes the limitations of the systems to warn drivers the systems may not operate as intended.
A separate Subaru EyeSight class action lawsuit settlement (Sampson v. Subaru) was recently granted final approval in a case where vehicle owners settled for much less than they desired.
This latest Subaru EyeSight lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Alexander Hall, et al., v. Subaru of America, Inc.
The plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and the Murphy Law Firm.