"Battery Manufacturer Deceived"... Mercedes Owners File Class Action

In connection with the electric vehicle fire accident in the underground parking lot of an apartment in Cheongna, Incheon last August, Mercedes electric vehicle owners have initiated a class action lawsuit against Mercedes headquarters. The owners pointed out that the use of a different battery from what was advertised constitutes "false advertising," while Mercedes countered, saying "the content is abstract and vague."

Judge Seo Hyeong-ju of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 904 held the first hearing on the damage compensation lawsuit filed by 24 owners of Mercedes EQE and EQS electric vehicles against the manufacturer, Mercedes' German headquarters, importer Mercedes Korea, and official dealer Hansung Motors. The plaintiffs are demanding 10 million won in damages per person. They are not the owners who suffered damage from the 'Cheongna fire.'

Attorney Ha Jong-seon of Naru Law Office, representing the owners, stated, "The vehicles in question contain Chinese-made Farasis batteries, but it was concealed and claimed that batteries from the world's number one battery company, CATL, were used, which constitutes deception and fraud under civil law." The use of Farasis products, unlike other company batteries made with fire-resistant materials, indicates an intent to deceive, he argued. He also claimed that "the response from Vice President Starzynski of Mercedes, stating there are no concerns about the battery, is false advertising due to defects in the Farasis battery," and demanded compensation along with the cancellation of sales and lease contracts.

Specific key defects presented include △ lack of design to stop thermal transfer in 2 cells △ non-use of fire-resistant materials and inadequate compartmentalization △ absence of a warning system 5 minutes before a fire △ defect in BMS (Battery Management System) not operating while parked △ absence of a protective plate under the battery.

Furthermore, it was argued that Mercedes was aware of the defects or learned of them through the Incheon parking lot fire but did not conduct a 'vehicle recall,' concealing the defects, and thus punitive damages of 3.5 billion won, five times the replacement cost of each battery pack of 70 million won, are necessary under the Automobile Management Act.

In response, the defendants countered, "the content is abstract and vague, and no evidence has been presented." Especially regarding the '5-minute warning' function, they argued, "it is a standard not present in our country, and it was not available when this car was released, so it is not understandable if it can be applied."

The court requested the plaintiffs to "organize what claims are being made against each defendant." This is because it is unclear what responsibilities are being asked of each individual defendant, given the various issues such as cancellation of sales and lease contracts, violation of the Advertising Act, and punitive damages.

On this day, the plaintiffs applied for a fact-finding inquiry on the status of the Fair Trade Commission's investigation and also requested the submission of documents related to the investigation records of the police mobile unit that investigated the cause of the fire at the time, which the court accepted. The court decided to discuss the application for appraisal and witness application at a future hearing. The next date was set for July 22.

Previously, in August last year, a fire that broke out in a Mercedes EQE350 vehicle parked in the underground parking lot of an apartment in Cheongna International City, Incheon, resulted in 87 vehicles being completely burned and 783 vehicles being scorched. The National Forensic Service announced in October last year that there was a possibility that the fire was caused by damage to the battery cell due to external impact, and subsequently, the owners filed a series of class action lawsuits.


scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter