“It is widespread that the Audi e-tron is a lemon, suffers from many serious defects, was not adequately tested before being sold, and was clearly not ready to be put on the market,” the statement of claim charges.
It said the applicant entered into a lease for a 2023 Audi Q4 e-tron because she thought that the electric vehicle would be free of safety issues or manufacturing defects. However, the statement of claim alleges that the car had serious safety and manufacturing defects, and that class members overpaid for the car.
The applicant’s battery was said to not adequately function, making her car a short-range city vehicle rather than a long-range one, and she also had issues with starting the car. When the applicant charged the car overnight, the battery only gained a handful of kilometres in range.
Audi’s mobile app indicated that it takes more than 30 hours to fully charge the battery, “which is absurd and was never disclosed by Audi,” and is contrary to what the company advertised, the claim said. It added that the defects were confirmed by Audi’s dealership representatives, who admitted to class members that there are issues with the car’s battery and geolocation, and further advised that there was no repair timeline for these issues.
The applicant made numerous requests for Audi to repair the defects, but Audi allegedly neglected to do so. The applicant has alleged that a delay of over one year to repair defects is unreasonable under s. 39 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
“The Applicant was entitled to expect, and rightly expected, that the Defendants guarantee the quality of the vehicles they design, market and sell,” the claim read. “Applicant has since been told by the Audi dealership that there is no repair available and that Audi would not provide her with a replacement vehicle in the interim nor any compensation.”
The applicant was said to have suffered ascertainable loss due to Audi’s alleged failure to respect ss. 39 and 228 of the Act and its omissions and misrepresentations. These were alleged to be overpayment for the vehicle, trouble and inconvenience beyond those to be expected by the average car owner and moral damages. The claim said that the damages “are a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct and their violations.”
The applicant asked for a reduction of her obligations in an amount to be determined on the date that Audi repairs the safety issue or the contract is nullified, and punitive damages of $5,000.
“Punitive damages are appropriate in this situation in order to send a strong message to vehicle manufacturers that vehicle owners should never have to wait for months and years for safety repairs to be performed and that manufacturers should not conceal safety issues and defects from their customers and the public at the time of sale,” the claim said.
It added that the defendants allegedly rushed to put their electric vehicles to market without proper testing, harming consumers, and that hiding the safety issues and defects was the more profitable option for Audi. The alleged violations were “intentional, malicious, vexatious and dangerous,” it charged.
The class was defined as “all persons who purchased and/or leased an Audi e-tron vehicle manufactured, distributed, supplied, wholesaled and/or imported by Audi.” The claim noted that there were several thousand e-tron vehicles sold in Quebec. Class counsel firms are LPC Avocats and Renno Vathilakis Inc.
If you have information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Anosha Khan at anosha.khan@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5838.