Mack Trucks lawsuits over the past two decades have spanned labor class actions, dealer antitrust suits, retiree healthcare disputes, product liability claims, and environmental enforcement. The most recent concluded case is Bennett v. Mack Trucks, Inc., a labor class action that received final settlement approval in April 2026. One month later, Mack’s parent, Volvo Group North America, settled a California emissions case for nearly $197 million involving roughly 10,000 diesel engines used in Mack and Volvo trucks.
Bennett v. Mack Trucks (2025–2026)
The newest case directly against the company is Bennett v. Mack Trucks, Inc., filed August 7, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl. It was docketed as a labor/management relations dispute.1Justia Dockets. Bennett v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Case No. 5:2025cv04517
It moved quickly. Judge Schmehl granted preliminary approval of a class settlement on January 6, 2026, on the plaintiff’s unopposed motion. Final approval followed at an April 23, 2026 hearing, and the case was dismissed with prejudice the next day, with the court retaining jurisdiction only to enforce the settlement.2PACER Monitor. Bennett v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-04517 Court records do not describe the specific labor practices at issue or disclose the financial terms.
Volvo Group’s $197 Million CARB Emissions Settlement (2026)
On May 18, 2026, the California Air Resources Board announced a settlement with Volvo Group North America totaling nearly $197 million. CARB alleged that roughly 10,000 model year 2010 through 2016 diesel truck engines used in Mack and Volvo vehicles carried undisclosed auxiliary emission control devices that caused nitrogen oxide emissions above permitted levels.3California Air Resources Board. California Settles Certification and Emissions Violations Case With Volvo Group North America LLC
The payment breaks down into $12.5 million in civil penalties, $71 million to CARB’s Air Pollution Control Fund, $108 million for emission-reduction projects subject to CARB approval, and $5 million reimbursing the agency’s investigation costs. Volvo said the deal would reduce Q2 2026 operating income by $196.5 million. The company did not admit liability and stated it was not aware of any additional U.S. investigations into its engine emissions compliance.4Volvo Group. Volvo Group North America Has Made a Settlement With CARB
Volvo also agreed to develop a software update and offer a partial warranty extension for about 7,200 model year 2014 through 2016 engines in California. A non-mandatory recall for eligible owners is expected to begin in 2027.5Los Angeles Times. Volvo to Pay $197 Million After Hidden Pollution Device Found in California Truck Engines
The 1998 Diesel Engine Case
Mack faced a similar issue nearly three decades earlier. In 1998, the Department of Justice sued Mack and six other diesel engine manufacturers over “defeat devices” that disabled emission controls during highway driving, allowing nitrogen oxide emissions up to three times the legal limit from an estimated 1.3 million engines.6U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Suit Against Mack Trucks The case settled in October 1998 for an $83.4 million total penalty across the seven manufacturers, plus more than $1 billion in collective remediation commitments. The government described it at the time as the largest civil penalty ever for an environmental violation.7U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mack Trucks Diesel Engine Settlement
Pending NHTSA Air Brake Petition
Mack has an open regulatory matter with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In January 2025, the company petitioned NHTSA to declare a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, governing air brake systems, inconsequential to safety. The petition covers roughly 12,827 vehicles: model year 2017 through 2026 Mack Pinnacle trucks and model year 2017 through 2019 Mack CHU trucks built between April 2016 and December 2024.8Federal Register. Mack Trucks LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
The gap is narrow. The affected trucks have combined service brake air reservoir volumes less than 1.5% below the regulatory nominal value, by Mack’s own estimate. Mack argued the shortfall is inconsequential because the trucks run at higher air pressure (110 psi) that produces stopping distances better than fully compliant vehicles, and because standard air dryers reduce moisture buildup.8Federal Register. Mack Trucks LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance NHTSA published the petition for public comment in March 2025 with a comment deadline of April 2025. The agency has not yet issued a final decision.
The $525 Million Retiree Healthcare Settlement
The largest case in Mack Trucks’ recent history involved retiree benefits. In 2008, former employees and the United Auto Workers sued the company, alleging it breached collective bargaining agreements by planning to cut off lifetime health benefits.9Law360. Retirees, UAW Sue Mack Trucks to Protect Benefits The litigation consolidated two related actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Mack Trucks, Inc. v. International Union, UAW (No. 07-3737) and Rachila v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (No. 09-622).
In May 2011, Mack and its parent AB Volvo agreed to contribute $525 million in cash to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust, paid in five annual installments. The VEBA would fund a restructured healthcare plan for more than 9,300 retirees. Volvo guaranteed Mack’s payment obligations, and the trust was structured to insulate its assets from Mack’s creditors in case of insolvency.10GovInfo. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. International Union, UAW, Case No. 07-3737 A seven-member committee (three UAW appointees, four independent, no Mack representatives) was designated to administer the trust.
A federal judge granted final approval in September 2011.11Courthouse News Service. Mack Truck Settlement Actuarial estimates projected the VEBA funding would cover roughly 85% of the restructured plan’s costs, meaning retirees faced reduced benefits and some cost-sharing compared to their original agreements.10GovInfo. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. International Union, UAW, Case No. 07-3737
Dealer Antitrust Cases
Mack Trucks fought a series of antitrust lawsuits brought by its own dealers. The lead case was Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., filed in 2002 by Ohio dealer Dave Yeager. Toledo Mack alleged Mack violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring with its dealer network to restrict competition, blocking sales outside the dealership’s immediate territory and selling directly to Toledo Mack’s potential customers at prices lower than those offered to the dealer itself.12The Morning Call. Federal Court Reinstates Mack Trucks Lawsuit; Antitrust Ohio Dealership Claims Company Acted to Restrict Competition Toledo Mack sought $75 million in damages.
A federal district court dismissed the antitrust claims in 2006, but the Third Circuit reversed in June 2008 in a decision that became an important antitrust precedent. The appellate court held that Toledo Mack had presented enough direct evidence, including testimony about “gentlemen’s agreements” among dealers and internal Mack communications, for a jury to decide whether an unlawful horizontal conspiracy existed. The court also rejected the district court’s statute of limitations analysis, allowing pre-1998 evidence to support claims for acts within the limitations period.13FindLaw. Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Case No. 07-1811
Mack brought counterclaims. It alleged Toledo Mack had misappropriated confidential business information by providing proprietary parts databases covering roughly one million Mack trucks to PAI Industries, a parts manufacturer. A jury sided with Mack and initially ordered Toledo Mack to pay $11.3 million. That award was later reduced to $1.6 million.12The Morning Call. Federal Court Reinstates Mack Trucks Lawsuit; Antitrust Ohio Dealership Claims Company Acted to Restrict Competition
At least two other dealers brought parallel suits: Wiegand Mack Sales & Service of Detroit and RDK Truck Sales & Service of Tampa.14The Morning Call. Mack Dealer to Get Court Date; Ohio Truck Seller Claims Allentown Company Hurt Trade RDK’s 2004 case alleged Mack conspired with body manufacturers McNeilus and Heil Environmental Industries to divide the refuse-truck market. In 2009, a federal judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Sherman Act claims, finding that RDK, unlike Toledo Mack, had not shown direct evidence of an actual conspiracy as opposed to parallel but independent conduct. RDK was allowed to proceed on Florida state-law claims for deceptive trade practices and tortious interference.15GovInfo. RDK Truck Sales & Service Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Case No. 04-4007
The 2023 UAW Strike
Mack’s most significant recent labor confrontation was not a lawsuit but a work stoppage. After the prior contract expired on October 9, 2023, roughly 4,000 UAW members walked off the job at five Mack facilities in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Florida. Workers had voted down a tentative five-year deal by a 73% margin, objecting to its lack of cost-of-living adjustments and a retirement policy that would have locked some employees out of the union’s pension plan.16Los Angeles Times. Workers at Mack Trucks Go on Strike After Rejecting Tentative Contract Deal
The rejected offer had included a 19% pay raise over the contract’s life, a $3,500 ratification bonus, and no increase in weekly healthcare contributions. Mack Trucks President Stephen Roy called it a “record for the heavy truck industry” and said the company was “surprised and disappointed” by the rejection.16Los Angeles Times. Workers at Mack Trucks Go on Strike After Rejecting Tentative Contract Deal The 39-day strike ended on November 17, 2023, when 93% of workers ratified a new five-year agreement. Detailed financial terms were not publicly disclosed beyond the UAW’s reference to “significant local improvements.”17Waste Dive. UAW Mack Trucks Labor Agreement Contract
Product Liability and Other Cases
Mack has appeared as a defendant in scattered other actions. In Whorton v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (2019), thirty-seven employees of Mack and Volvo Group North America sued in the District of Maryland, alleging illegal paycheck deductions tied to disputed vacation time and seniority calculations. They also claimed the UAW breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing a wage grievance. The court ruled the employees’ state-law claims were preempted by federal labor law because resolving them required interpreting the collective bargaining agreement.18vLex. Whorton v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Civil Action No. CCB-19-413
On the product liability side, Buchanan v. Bostrom Seating, Inc. (2014) involved a truck driver who alleged his driver’s seat collapsed while he was operating a Mack truck. A New York appellate court dismissed the defective-design and breach-of-warranty claims against Mack and the seat manufacturer but allowed negligence and manufacturing-defect claims to proceed to trial.19FindLaw. Buchanan v. Bostrom Seating, Inc.