Stellantis is facing several class action lawsuits, headlined by a pending federal securities fraud case in New York over the automaker’s electric vehicle strategy, plus active consumer cases covering Jeep 4xe battery fires, defective 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 engines, and inflated destination fees. An earlier securities case alleging dealer “channel stuffing” was dismissed in March 2026, and two older matters — a Tigershark engine oil-consumption case and a UAW bribery securities case — have already settled.
The Pending Securities Fraud Case Over EV Strategy
Harman v. Stellantis N.V., No. 1:26-cv-02839, was filed April 7, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It covers investors who held Stellantis shares between February 26, 2025, and February 5, 2026, and names CEO Antonio Filosa, Executive Chairman John Elkann, former CFO Douglas Ostermann, and current CFO Joao Laranjo as defendants.1CourtListener. Harman v. Stellantis N.V., Case 1:26-cv-02839
The complaint alleges Stellantis misled investors about earnings growth, its ability to capture the electric vehicle market, and the scale of restructuring it would need. According to the suit, leadership knew internally that U.S. battery-electric vehicle penetration was under 6 percent, far below the 50 percent figure used in their planning, yet kept guiding investors toward optimistic financial targets.2Levi & Korsinsky. Stellantis N.V. Class Action Lawsuit
The alleged corrective disclosure came on February 6, 2026, when Stellantis announced what Filosa called a “decisive reset,” disclosing roughly €22.2 billion in charges: €14.7 billion tied to realigning product plans, €6.0 billion in impairments of battery-electric vehicle platforms, and €5.4 billion for warranty and operational adjustments. Filosa said the charges “largely reflect the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition that distanced us from many car buyers’ real-world needs, means and desires.”3Morningstar. Stellantis N.V. (STLA) Shareholders Urged to Contact Law Offices Stellantis shares closed at $9.54 on February 5 and fell to $7.28 on February 6, a decline of roughly 23.7 percent in a single session.4PR Newswire. STLA Deadline: The Gross Law Firm Reminds Stellantis N.V. Investors
The case is in its opening phase. The deadline for investors to move to serve as lead plaintiff was June 8, 2026, and competing motions have been filed. The defendants’ response is due 30 days after a lead plaintiff and operative complaint are in place.1CourtListener. Harman v. Stellantis N.V., Case 1:26-cv-02839
The Dismissed Channel-Stuffing Securities Case
An earlier securities case, Long v. Stellantis N.V., No. 1:24-cv-06196, was dismissed on March 13, 2026. Boston Retirement System served as lead plaintiff, represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and the class period ran from October 31, 2023, through September 27, 2024. It named former CEO Carlos Tavares and former CFO Natalie Knight.5Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Stellantis Case Overview
The complaint alleged Stellantis pushed excess inventory onto U.S. dealers — relaxing program requirements, offering dealer coupons, printing new window stickers with reduced prices, and eventually paying dealers to accept more vehicles — to inflate short-term margins. Former employees cited in the complaint reported that 50 to 60 percent of dealers were unprofitable and some carried over 100 days of inventory, against an industry norm of 40 to 60 days.6CCH. Long v. Stellantis N.V., Case 1:24-cv-06196-VEC-GS
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted Stellantis’s motion to dismiss, finding investors failed to plead a strong inference of scienter and that none of the challenged statements were material within the meaning of the securities laws.7Law360. Stellantis Escapes Vehicle Inventory Channel-Stuffing Suit
Jeep 4xe Plug-In Hybrid Battery Fires
Consumer class actions target fire risks in the Jeep Wrangler 4xe and Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrids, which use high-voltage lithium-ion battery packs made by Samsung SDI. Owners have reported spontaneous fires in parked, powered-off vehicles.8Lieff Cabraser. Jeep Battery Fire Class Action
NHTSA has issued two recalls. Recall 24V-720 covered more than 154,000 vehicles from model years 2020 through 2024 and called for a software update and battery inspection. That remedy did not solve the problem: the agency found nine fires in vehicles that had already received the software fix.9NHTSA. Consumer Alert: Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Wrangler PHEVs Superseding recall 25V-741 expanded the population to 320,065 vehicles, covering Wranglers from model years 2020 through 2025 and Grand Cherokees from 2022 through 2026. Chrysler was aware of 19 battery-related fires and one injury at the time of that recall. No remedy was available, and NHTSA advised owners to park outside, away from structures and other vehicles, and to stop charging.10NHTSA. Park Outside Recall: Jeep Wrangler PHEV
At least two class actions were filed in early 2025. One is Lisa Humphreys, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00053, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. A separate action was filed in March 2025 by a New York resident that specifically alleges physical defects in the Samsung-manufactured battery cells. Both cases are pending.11Top Class Actions. Jeep Class Action Targets Battery Defect in Recalled 4xe Vehicles
Pentastar V6 Engine Defect Case
Maugain et al. v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00116, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, covers owners of 2014 or newer Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram vehicles with the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6. Plaintiffs allege a defective valve train system causes premature engine failure, with symptoms including audible ticking, power loss, bucking, and surging. The complaint claims FCA knew of the defect as early as 2013 and replaced failed parts with other defective components.12Berger Montague. Maugain et al. v. FCA US LLC The court partially denied FCA’s motion to dismiss in February 2023. The case is in discovery.13Cohen Milstein. Maugain et al. v. FCA US LLC
Inflated Destination Fees
Cole et al. v. FCA US LLC, No. 9:21-cv-02473, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges Stellantis and FCA turned the non-negotiable “destination fee” charged on new vehicles into a hidden profit center rather than a pass-through shipping charge. The complaint cited data showing destination charges for the company’s brands rose between 74 and 114 percent since 2011, compared to less than 20 percent growth for competing luxury brands. The named plaintiffs each paid $1,495 in destination fees, one on a 2018 Jeep Wrangler and the other on a 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee.14ClassAction.org. Fiat Chrysler, Stellantis Grossly Overcharged Drivers for Vehicle Delivery Fees15Top Class Actions. FCA Stellantis Destination Fees Class Action Lawsuit
Unpaid Overtime Settlement Awaiting Final Approval
Featherstone et al. v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:23-cv-10362, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, was brought by current and former hourly employees who claimed FCA failed to pay required overtime. The parties reached a $3.795 million settlement covering employees who worked between February 10, 2020, and May 12, 2025. FCA did not admit wrongdoing. A final approval hearing is set for August 25, 2026.16Top Class Actions. $3.8M FCA US Unpaid Overtime Class Action Settlement
Already-Settled Cases You May Come Across
Two older class actions have been fully resolved. In re Stellantis N.V. Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-06770 in the Eastern District of New York, settled for $5 million with court approval in February 2022. That case grew out of Fiat Chrysler’s involvement in a UAW bribery scheme and alleged the company misrepresented its role in bribes paid to union officials and their effect on 2015 collective bargaining agreements.17Bernstein Liebhard. In re Stellantis N.V. Securities Litigation
Wood et al. v. FCA US, LLC, No. 5:20-cv-11054 in the Eastern District of Michigan, received final settlement approval in December 2022. The case involved excess oil consumption in 2.4-liter Tigershark engines. FCA created an $8 million fund for towing and rental reimbursements and extended the powertrain warranty to 7 years or 100,000 miles for affected vehicles, including certain model years of the Chrysler 200, Dodge Dart, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Renegade, Jeep Compass, Ram Promaster City, and Fiat 500x. FCA denied the engines were defective.18FCA Tigershark Settlement. Wood et al. v. FCA US, LLC Settlement If you owned one of those vehicles, the claims window in that settlement has closed; the case is not accepting new claimants.