Chevy Cruze Diesel Lawsuit: Sixth Circuit Revival and Case Status

The Chevy Cruze diesel lawsuit is a class action accusing General Motors and parts supplier Robert Bosch of installing emissions-cheating software in 2014–2016 Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel vehicles. Filed in 2016 and dismissed in 2023, it was revived on June 6, 2025, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal in part and sent the case back to a Michigan federal court. Nine years in, it remains unresolved.¹

Who Is Suing and Over Which Vehicles

The case, Counts v. General Motors, LLC and Robert Bosch LLC (No. 2:16-cv-12541), was filed in July 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by nine owners of diesel Cruze vehicles. It names GM as the manufacturer and both Robert Bosch LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH as suppliers of the engine management and fuel-injection software.²

The vehicles at issue are 2014–2016 Cruze models equipped with the 2.0-liter four-cylinder LUZ turbodiesel engine, certified by GM to EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards.³ Buyers paid roughly $2,000 more than the price of the gasoline version for a vehicle marketed as “clean diesel.”²

The Defeat-Device Allegations

Plaintiffs allege the Cruze diesel contains “defeat devices” — software that makes the car appear cleaner during laboratory testing than it actually performs on the road. Attorneys at Hagens Berman commissioned on-road testing using a Portable Emissions Measurement System, and the results, they say, showed nitrogen oxide output far above federal limits:

Highway driving averaged 174 mg/mile of NOx, with spikes to 557 mg/mile, against a 70 mg/mile federal standard.
Stop-and-go driving averaged 287 mg/mile, with a maximum of 1,051 mg/mile, against a 50 mg/mile standard.
In extreme cold (below 0°F), NOx reached 1,602 mg/mile, roughly 18 times the standard.
In extreme heat (95–102°F), NOx averaged 1,224 mg/mile, about 17 times the relevant standard.

Across about 1,299 miles of testing, NOx averaged 244 mg/mile. Plaintiffs allege the emissions control system appeared to derate or stop working entirely below 50°F or above 85°F, behavior they characterize as a defeat device.⁴

GM’s Response

GM has consistently denied the allegations. When the suit was filed, the company said the Cruze turbo diesel “complies with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations” and called the claims “misleading oversimplifications and misinterpretations of the complicated interrelationships of a modern emissions control system of a diesel engine.” GM denied using any illegal software or defeat device.⁵

In its 2020 summary judgment motion, GM told the court that “after years of discovery, millions of pages of produced documents, scores of depositions, detailed expert disclosures, and communications with regulators, plaintiffs’ claims have proven completely unfounded.” Judge Thomas L. Ludington later noted that FOIA requests to the EPA and CARB turned up no investigation records, no regulator had opened an inquiry into the Cruze diesel, and the only vehicle actually tested by plaintiffs’ experts was a single Cruze purchased by the attorneys themselves rather than any car owned by the named plaintiffs.⁶

Despite those concerns, in a June 2022 order Judge Ludington found the PEMS evidence admissible and identified testimony supporting three defeat devices, denying GM full summary judgment on those grounds while dismissing the racketeering and some state-law claims.²

Nine Years of Procedural History

The case has moved slowly through discovery, motions, and appeals:

July 2016: Nine Cruze diesel owners file a 442-page complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan.²
February 2017: Judge Ludington denies an early motion to dismiss.²
June 2018: Plaintiffs amend the complaint to add RICO claims and name Bosch as a defendant; the court refuses to dismiss Bosch.²
July 2019: Document discovery and fact-witness depositions close.²
June 2022: A mixed ruling lets the defeat-device claims survive but dismisses RICO and some state-law claims.²
July 2023: The district court dismisses the remaining case, ruling that federal law preempts the plaintiffs’ claims.⁷
February 2024: The court denies reconsideration.⁷
June 6, 2025: The Sixth Circuit reverses the dismissal in part and remands.¹

A separate side story: Bosch at one point reached a class-action settlement, then exercised a termination clause and withdrew. A court upheld Bosch’s right to terminate that deal in early 2024, and Bosch remains a defendant alongside GM.⁸

The 2025 Sixth Circuit Revival

The appeal turned on preemption, not on whether GM cheated. The district court had ruled in July 2023 that the Clean Air Act barred the plaintiffs’ state-law fraud claims because those claims effectively asked a jury to second-guess the EPA’s certification of the vehicle.

On June 6, 2025, a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reversed that ruling in part, applying its August 2024 decision in Fenner v. General Motors, LLC. Under Fenner, the Clean Air Act does not automatically preempt state-law claims about a vehicle’s emissions performance.⁹ The panel drew a line: claims are preempted when they require a jury to decide whether a vehicle violates EPA regulations or whether a component qualifies as a “defeat device” under the Clean Air Act, because Congress delegated those determinations to the EPA. Claims framed differently can survive.¹⁰

Two fraud theories survived that test: that the diesel Cruze emitted more pollution than a reasonable consumer would expect, and that it emitted more than GM had advertised. Both, the court reasoned, could potentially be proven without challenging the EPA’s own technical determinations.¹⁰ The panel affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claims under the indirect-purchaser rule.¹¹

The Sixth Circuit did not decide whether those surviving claims have enough evidence to reach a jury. It sent the case back to the Eastern District of Michigan to work through the existing record and determine, first, whether the remaining fraud theories truly stand independent of the EPA’s regulatory determinations, and if so, whether there are genuine factual disputes for trial.¹⁰

What Owners Are Seeking and Who’s Covered

The plaintiffs are seeking a buyback of the affected vehicles, reimbursement for the price premium paid over equivalent gasoline models, compensation for unused extended warranties, the cost of excess fuel from decreased efficiency, future repair costs, loss in resale value, and environmental remediation costs. The complaint also seeks punitive damages for fraud.³

The proposed class is limited to people who purchased or leased a Cruze with the Clean Diesel engine in the United States. Owners who sold their vehicles before the allegations became public are excluded.³ No settlement is currently in place, and no trial date has been publicly reported.

Where the Case Stands Now

The case is back before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan following the Sixth Circuit’s June 2025 remand.¹ The district court now has to decide whether the two surviving fraud theories can proceed without relying on challenges to the EPA’s emissions certifications, and whether the seven-year record contains genuine factual disputes requiring a jury. No settlement discussions have been publicly reported.⁷

1
Bloomberg Law. Sixth Circuit Revives Cruze Emissions Suit Against GM, Bosch
2
Hagens Berman. Chevy Cruze Emissions
3
Hagens Berman. Chevy Cruze Lawsuit FAQ
4
Hagens Berman. GM Latest Automaker Hit by Diesel Emissions Lawsuits
5
Detroit News. Lawsuit Filed Against GM Over Chevy Diesel Emissions
6
Kirkland & Ellis. Diesel Emissions Class Action Over GM
7
GM Authority. Chevy Cruze Diesel Lawsuit Still Alive Nine Years Later
8
Westlaw. Bosch Terminates Chevy Cruze Diesel Settlement
9
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Fenner v. General Motors LLC
10
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Counts v. General Motors, No. 24-1139
11
Justia. Counts v. General Motors, No. 24-1139