2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Gt Coupe 2-door 3.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

U.S. appeals court preserves $210M Hyundai-Kia fuel economy class settlement

A U.S. appeals court restored a $210 million nationwide class-action settlement for hundreds of thousands of owners of Hyundai Motor Co and Kia Motors Corp vehicles whose fuel economy estimates were inflated. By an 8-3 vote on Thursday, in a case closely watched by class-action lawyers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, said vehicle owners had enough in common to let them settle as a group. It also rejected arguments by owners opposed to the settlement that the claims process was too burdensome, and that lawyers for the class had colluded with the automakers to extract a "sweetheart deal" that undervalued their claims. The case began after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found flaws in Hyundai's and Kia's testing procedures, prompting the automakers to lower fuel efficiency estimates for about 900,000 vehicles from the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. Lawyers for objecting drivers had no immediate comment. Hyundai said it was grateful for the decision. Kia and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision by Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen upheld a settlement approved in June 2015 by U.S. District Judge George Wu in Los Angeles. Wu "made careful findings, which the objectors here largely do not challenge, and which more than support the judgment," Nguyen wrote. The decision reversed a divided three-judge 9th Circuit panel's January 2018 rejection of the settlement and decertification of the class action. That panel said Wu failed to assess whether differences in state laws prevented certification of a nationwide class. It also said used car owners should have been excluded because it was unclear whether they had relied on the South Korean automakers' fuel economy claims. Lawyers had said it would become much harder to obtain nationwide settlements if the panel ruling stood. Nguyen had dissented from the panel ruling. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, who wrote it, dissented on Thursday. Ikuta accused the majority of failing to determine what law should apply to the nationwide class or how the settlement, and thus attorneys' fees, should be valued. "The majority's failure to correct these errors may be beneficial for the class action bar, but it detracts from compliance with Supreme Court precedent," Ikuta wrote. The 9th Circuit covers nine western U.S. states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Watch the 2015 Hyundai Sonata crash its way to an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating

Hyundai has managed to get another vehicle on the prestigious Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick +, as its new 2015 Sonata sedan performed admirably in crash testing.
The redesigned Sonata's new look belied an improved crash test in the difficult small overlap front test, where Hyundai's family sedan improved from a "Marginal" score to "Acceptable." Meanwhile, the Sonata's optional Forward Collision Warning system garnered a "Basic" rating on IIHS' three-tier rating scale for these sort of automatic safety systems.
Netting a spot on the Top Safety Pick + list requires a "Good" or "Acceptable" score on the small overlap test, as well as "Good" scores on the four standard tests and some form of automated safety system.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.