The Chevy Shake class action lawsuit hit a major roadblock in June 2025 when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated class certification in Speerly v. General Motors LLC, the lead case covering roughly 800,000 GM vehicles with eight-speed transmissions. There is no settlement, no claim form, and no filing deadline right now. The case has been sent back to the district court, and separate lawsuits continue, but owners waiting for a payout should understand that the legal landscape shifted significantly and individual claims may now be the stronger path.1Justia. Dennis Speerly v General Motors LLC No 23-1940
Which Vehicles Are Covered
The Speerly litigation targeted GM vehicles equipped with the 8L90 or 8L45 eight-speed automatic transmission. The class definition covered these models and years:
- Chevrolet Silverado, 2015–2019
- Chevrolet Colorado, 2017–2019
- Chevrolet Corvette, 2015–2019
- Chevrolet Camaro, 2016–2019
- Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, 2015–2017
- Cadillac CTS, 2016–2019
- Cadillac CT6, 2016–2018
- GMC Sierra, 2015–2019
- GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, 2015–2017
- GMC Canyon, 2017–2019
The transmission is what matters, not the vehicle. If your truck or SUV came with a six-speed or ten-speed automatic, these lawsuits don’t apply to you. You can confirm which transmission your vehicle has by looking up your VIN, the 17-character code on the lower-left corner of your dashboard or inside the driver-side door jamb.2Justia. Speerly v General Motors LLC No 23-1940
Why the Court Threw Out Class Certification
Speerly was originally certified as 26 statewide subclasses covering about 800,000 buyers, potentially one of the largest automotive class actions in recent years. GM appealed, and the Sixth Circuit vacated the entire certification order in June 2025. The ruling didn’t say the claims lacked merit. It said the district court hadn’t done enough to justify treating so many buyers as one group.3United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Speerly v General Motors LLC
The appeals court identified three problems. State consumer protection statutes vary too much to lump together, and the district judge hadn’t walked through each state’s law individually. Some states require a defect to actually show symptoms before an owner can sue; others allow claims based on the defect’s presence alone. Individual owner circumstances also varied widely: some experienced shudder, others harsh shifting, some both. Some brought vehicles in for warranty repair, some didn’t. Some got the problem fixed under warranty, others paid out of pocket. The plaintiffs’ proposed method of sorting these differences using GM’s warranty data was, in the court’s words, “highly unclear — indeed doubtful.” Finally, worn tires and other factors can produce a similar shudder, raising individualized questions about causation that overwhelm any common ones.1Justia. Dennis Speerly v General Motors LLC No 23-1940
What This Means for Your Claim Right Now
There is currently no certified class, no active settlement fund, and no claim form to file. Anyone advertising a Chevy Shake settlement portal is not describing an approved court settlement, because none exists.
The Speerly case isn’t dead. On remand, the district court could try to certify smaller state-specific classes or narrower subclasses that address the Sixth Circuit’s concerns. Any re-certification will likely cover fewer states and fewer owners than the original structure, and the process will take months at minimum. Other cases against GM over the same transmissions remain active in the Eastern District of Michigan, including Helms v. General Motors LLC, which had discovery and scheduling orders entered as recently as late 2025, and Ulrich v. General Motors, which survived a partial motion to dismiss.4Justia. Helms et al v General Motors LLC No 2-2022cv10783 Document 1385Justia. Ulrich et al v General Motors LLC No 2-2024cv11007
One boundary worth stating clearly: despite widespread NHTSA complaints, no major recall has been issued for the core shudder defect in the 8L90 or 8L45 transmissions. GM has no legal obligation to repair the torque converter free of charge outside of warranty coverage or any voluntarily extended repair programs. Owners have sometimes been offered a fluid exchange under Technical Service Bulletin 18-NA-355, but that procedure addresses contaminated fluid rather than the underlying torque converter design, and plaintiffs in Speerly reported that shudder “persisted despite repairs.”6National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical Service Bulletin 18-NA-355
Individual Legal Options
With no class settlement on the horizon, owners have several individual paths to pursue.
State Lemon Laws
Every state has some version of a lemon law requiring manufacturers to buy back or replace vehicles with defects that cannot be fixed after a reasonable number of repair attempts. Most states require the owner to have brought the vehicle in for the same problem at least three or four times, or for the vehicle to have been out of service for a cumulative 30 days during the warranty period. If the manufacturer still can’t fix it, the owner may be entitled to a full refund or replacement. That kind of individual recovery typically dwarfs what class members receive after settlements are split among thousands of claimants.
The catch is timing. Most lemon laws only apply while the vehicle is under its original manufacturer’s warranty. For 2015–2019 model-year vehicles, that window has closed for many owners unless they purchased extended coverage or their state has a longer statutory period. A lemon law attorney can evaluate whether your specific situation still qualifies.
Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act lets consumers sue manufacturers who fail to honor written or implied warranties. It doesn’t impose a strict repair-attempt threshold, though you still need to show GM had an opportunity to fix the problem and failed. Individual claims can be filed in state or federal court and can include recovery of attorney fees if you win, which makes it easier to find a lawyer willing to take the case.
Opting Out If a Class Is Certified Again
If a new class is eventually certified in Speerly or another case, you’ll receive notice and a deadline to opt out. Opting out preserves your right to file an individual lawsuit but forfeits any share of a class settlement. For owners who spent thousands on transmission repairs or whose vehicle lost substantial resale value, an individual claim often makes more financial sense. For owners with minor symptoms and no out-of-pocket costs, staying in a class is usually the more practical choice.
Evidence to Preserve Now
Whether the class revives or you pursue an individual claim, the same evidence matters. Start building your file before records become harder to obtain.
- Dealership repair records for every visit where you mentioned shudder, vibration, harsh shifting, or any transmission complaint. These are the single most important piece of evidence in a transmission defect case.
- Your purchase or lease agreement. The state of purchase determines which consumer protection laws apply.
- Out-of-pocket repair receipts if you paid for transmission work after your warranty expired. Reimbursement is a primary form of compensation in these cases.
- Written complaints you sent to the dealership or GM customer service. Written complaints carry more weight than verbal ones.
- Your VIN and confirmation that your vehicle has the 8L45 or 8L90 transmission.
Owners with documented repeated repair failures are in the strongest position regardless of which legal path they choose. Those who never brought the vehicle in face a harder road, since the Sixth Circuit specifically flagged the difficulty of proving a transmission defect in vehicles that never received warranty service. If your vehicle still shudders and you haven’t taken it to a dealer, doing so now creates a record that could matter later.