The auto parts class action settlement is a roughly $1.2 billion consumer recovery in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (MDL-2311), covering people and businesses who bought or leased vehicles or replacement parts affected by a decade-long price-fixing conspiracy among dozens of auto parts manufacturers.1Susman Godfrey. Settlements in Landmark Auto Parts Litigation Surpass $1 Billion All claim deadlines have passed. Pro-rata payments to authorized claimants were distributed by the settlement administrator, Epiq, in September 2025.2Auto Parts Class. Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
What the Case Was About
The lawsuits grew out of what the U.S. Department of Justice called the largest criminal antitrust investigation it had ever pursued. Prosecutors charged 48 corporations and 65 executives with rigging bids, fixing prices, and allocating customers for more than 30 categories of car parts. The conduct affected more than $5 billion worth of components installed in over 25 million vehicles sold to American consumers.3FBI.gov. Sticker Shock: Guilty Pleas Show High Cost of Price Fixing in Auto Industry
Parts covered by the civil settlements included wire harnesses, fuel injection systems, alternators, spark plugs, air conditioning systems, bearings, exhaust systems, occupant safety systems, instrument panel clusters, ignition coils, shock absorbers, power window motors, braking systems, automotive lamps, steering assemblies, and body sealing products, among others.4Auto Parts Class. FAQ Affected automakers included Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, and Mitsubishi.3FBI.gov. Sticker Shock: Guilty Pleas Show High Cost of Price Fixing in Auto Industry The conspirators allocated supply on a model-by-model basis and coordinated responses to price-adjustment requests from automakers, so competitive bidding was effectively an illusion.5New Haven Register. Denso Corp and Yazaki to Pay All settling defendants denied wrongdoing.6Reuters. US Judge Rejects Lawyers’ $94 Million Fee Bid in Auto Parts Pricing Case
Who Was Eligible to File
The consumer settlements (the “end-payor” track) were open to individuals and businesses in the District of Columbia and 30 states who purchased or leased a qualifying new vehicle, or bought qualifying replacement parts not for resale, between approximately 1990 and 2019.7MultiVU. Auto Parts Class Action Claim Deadline The exact model years and part categories varied by settlement round.
A separate direct purchaser track existed for automakers and first-tier buyers who purchased parts straight from the manufacturers. That track produced more than $360 million in settlements and concluded in 2022; it was never available to ordinary vehicle owners.8Kohn Swift. Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
Claim Deadlines and Settlement Rounds
The consumer settlements were approved in five rounds between 2016 and 2023:4Auto Parts Class. FAQ
- Round 1, approved August 9, 2016: about $225 million.
- Round 2, approved July 10, 2017: about $379 million.
- Round 3, approved November 7, 2018: about $433 million.
- Round 4, approved September 23, 2020: about $184 million.
- Round 5, approved February 6, 2023: about $3.15 million.
The claim filing deadline for Rounds 1 through 4 was June 18, 2020. The Round 5 deadline was January 7, 2023.4Auto Parts Class. FAQ Both deadlines have passed, and no further claims are being accepted.
How Much Claimants Received
A total of 160,602 class members submitted claims.9Crain’s Autonews. Motion for Distribution The court-approved allocation plan set a minimum payment of $100 per eligible claimant. Vehicles containing parts directly targeted by the conspirators were weighted at four times the value of other vehicles in the distribution formula.10Auto Parts Class. Order Granting Round 5 Plan of Allocation
For most qualifying class members, the $100 minimum was the full recovery.9Crain’s Autonews. Motion for Distribution Epiq mailed pro-rata payments to authorized claimants in September 2025.2Auto Parts Class. Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
If You Filed a Claim But Did Not Receive a Check
Claimants who submitted a valid claim and did not receive a check by the end of October 2025 were instructed to contact Epiq at 1-877-940-5043.2Auto Parts Class. Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation Keep any notices or claimant ID numbers you were issued when you call, since the administrator will use those to look up your file.
Canadian Class Actions
If you bought or leased an affected vehicle in Canada, a separate set of class actions applies. Roughly 45 Canadian lawsuits, led by Siskinds LLP, Sotos Class Actions, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, and Siskinds Desmeules, produced settlements with 67 defendant groups totaling approximately $180 million.11Sotos Class Actions. Auto Parts Funds have been fully distributed in 36 of those actions.12Siskinds. Auto Parts Class Action
A “Third Omnibus Distribution” covering nine remaining product categories (air conditioning systems, anti-vibration rubber parts, autolights, exhaust systems, braking systems, door latches, ignition coils, instrument panel clusters, and shock absorbers) set a claims deadline of May 12, 2026. Approximately $35 million is available for distribution after fees and expenses, with a minimum claim value of $25.13Siskinds. Third Omnibus Long Form Notice of Claims Process
The Outstanding Attorney Fee Dispute
One piece of the U.S. case remains unresolved. By mid-2025, class counsel for the consumer plaintiffs had already collected more than $269 million in fees across the first four rounds, roughly 22% of the total fund. They then moved for an additional $94 million, which would have brought the total to 30%.14HLLI. In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation The Center for Class Action Fairness objected, arguing counsel had previously promised not to seek a 30% fee. Hertz and Avis, both class members, also objected, saying the lawyers had already been amply compensated.6Reuters. US Judge Rejects Lawyers’ $94 Million Fee Bid in Auto Parts Pricing Case
On July 11, 2025, Chief Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the fee request without prejudice, calling it “excessive and premature.” He instructed the firms to refile closer to the end of the claims process and said any eventual award should be “far less” than $94 million, suggesting an increase to 23–25% or a calculation based on actual hours spent on new work.6Reuters. US Judge Rejects Lawyers’ $94 Million Fee Bid in Auto Parts Pricing Case Judge Cox retired at the end of July 2025, so a refiled motion will go before a successor.15JAMS. Sean F. Cox, Retired Chief Judge The dispute affects how much of the fund goes to lawyers versus claimants, but the September 2025 pro-rata distribution to class members has already been made.