The narrative unfolds around a class-action lawsuit filed against Mitsubishi regarding a persistent hood flutter problem in their 2022 Outlander models. Despite initial recall efforts and proposed fixes, many vehicle owners continued to experience the defect, leading to legal action. The subsequent settlement, however, has sparked debate, with a significant portion of the financial compensation directed towards the legal counsel rather than providing substantial relief to the affected consumers. This situation underscores the often-complex and sometimes inequitable outcomes of class-action litigation, where the legal process itself can overshadow the original grievances of the plaintiffs.Justice Served? A Closer Look at the Outlander Hood Settlement.
The Genesis of the Hood Flutter Issue: A Design Flaw Emerges
In December 2021, Mitsubishi initiated a recall for its 2022 Outlander vehicles due to an alarming issue: the hood would visibly flutter at high speeds. This problem was attributed to inadequate reinforcement at the hood's rear edge. As the vehicle accelerated, air entering the engine bay created lift, causing the hood to vibrate and increasing the dangerous potential for it to open unexpectedly while in motion.
Initial Repair Attempts and Customer Dissatisfaction
Mitsubishi's proposed remedy involved replacing the original hood with an updated version featuring additional reinforcement, specifically a pair of head bolts near the latch, along with a new weather strip. However, this solution failed to appease many affected owners. Reports soon surfaced indicating that the problem persisted even after the repair, with some owners also complaining that the new hoods did not precisely match their vehicle's paint color.
The Legal Battle Commences: Owners Seek Fairer Resolution
Driven by ongoing issues and dissatisfaction with Mitsubishi's fix, a class-action lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs contended that the implemented solution did not completely resolve the hood defect. Furthermore, affected owners cited a noticeable decline in their Outlander's fuel efficiency, which they attributed to the turbulence generated beneath the fluttering hood. Mitsubishi, however, maintained that the panels were not inherently defective. After years of litigation, a settlement was finally reached, though its terms raised questions about the benefits to the actual vehicle owners.
The Terms of Resolution: Minimal Gains for Vehicle Owners
Under the terms of the settlement, vehicle owners will primarily receive another hood replacement if the fluttering issue continues. Beyond this, the compensation for the troubles endured appears to be minimal. Mitsubishi has also offered a warranty extension for the second hood replacement. This extension is valid for 18 months if the initial replacement occurred within the last 18 months, or for a shorter six-month period if the previous replacement was more than 18 months ago.
The Unequal Distribution: Legal Teams Reap Substantial Rewards
While some individual plaintiffs may receive up to $5,000, or a collective amount if they are part of a group, the most significant financial benefit from this settlement is directed towards the legal representatives. The lawyers involved in the class-action lawsuit are slated to receive a staggering $1,750,000. This considerable payout to the legal team, in contrast to the limited compensation for vehicle owners, highlights a common criticism of class-action settlements. A fairness hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2026, to finalize the distribution of these funds.
