Toyota Mirai Lawsuit: Fraud, Antitrust, and $5.7B RICO Claims

The Toyota Mirai lawsuits are a cluster of California federal class actions filed since July 2024 accusing Toyota of selling hydrogen fuel cell sedans that owners cannot reliably fuel, drive, or resell, with claims spanning consumer fraud, warranty violations, antitrust conduct, and federal racketeering. As of mid-2026, none has reached trial or settlement. The largest, a RICO complaint, seeks $5.7 billion in damages.

Why Mirai Owners Are Suing

Every one of the lawsuits traces back to the same problem: California’s hydrogen station network has been shrinking rather than growing. A December 2024 California Air Resources Board report counted 62 stations, down from 66 earlier that year after Shell permanently closed seven locations. By August 2025 the count had dropped to 61, with only 50 open for retail use.1California Air Resources Board. AB 126 Report 2025 California had targeted 200 stations by 2025.2Autoweek. California Hydrogen Stations Map Decline

Owners describe broken pumps, nozzles that freeze onto vehicles and take 30 minutes or more to thaw, and stations that run out of fuel entirely.3ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Toyota Mirai Electric Vehicles Were Misrepresented Amid Hydrogen Fuel Shortage Hydrogen prices roughly tripled from about $13 per kilogram in 2022 to roughly $36 per kilogram by 2024.4Electrive. Mirai Owners Sue Toyota Over Usability Toyota’s $15,000 fuel card, meant to cover about five years of driving, was being burned through in as little as 18 months at those prices.5KTLA. From the Next Prius to Paperweight: Hydrogen Cars Exasperate Owners, Prompt Lawsuit Against Toyota

Roughly 14,000 Mirais were sold in California. Owners report monthly payments of $500 to $700 on cars they cannot drive, resale values collapsing by as much as 90 percent, and a battery that can fail if the vehicle sits unused for seven days. Attorney Jason Ingber, who represents hundreds of Mirai owners across the cases, told CBS News that the car has become “a $50,000 paper weight.”6CBS News. Bay Area Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Owners Part of a Lawsuit Against Toyota

The Caluwe Consumer Fraud Case

The first major suit, Bryan Caluwe et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-05819), was filed July 10, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It seeks to represent all California residents who bought or leased a 2021 through 2024 Mirai.7Top Class Actions. Toyota Class Action Claims Hydrogen Fuel Unavailable for Mirai Vehicles

The complaint alleges Toyota marketed the refueling experience as “seamless” and “comparable to refueling with gasoline” while knowing the hydrogen network was unreliable, and that the Mirai’s real driving range falls up to 100 miles short of what was advertised. Claims are brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the state’s lemon law), the California Unfair Competition Law, and other state consumer statutes.3ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Toyota Mirai Electric Vehicles Were Misrepresented Amid Hydrogen Fuel Shortage

The complaint has been amended four times, with the Fourth Amended Complaint filed April 29, 2026. Toyota’s deadline to respond is August 14, 2026, and a scheduling conference is set for November 6, 2026.8PacerMonitor. Bryan Caluwe et al v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al The parties reportedly made “considerable progress” toward resolution at one point, but no settlement has been announced.9CarComplaints.com. Toyota Mirai Lawsuit Update

The Nunez Antitrust Case

A second suit, Alejandro Nunez et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-06414), was filed July 30, 2024, in the same court. It named both Toyota and First Element, Inc., operator of California’s largest hydrogen network under the “True Zero” brand, and framed the Mirai problem as an antitrust matter.10ClassAction.org. Nunez et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

The Nunez plaintiffs alleged Toyota illegally tied the purchase of a Mirai to First Element fuel by controlling which stations the automaker-issued fuel cards worked at, and by threatening to void warranties if owners refueled at unapproved stations.11ClassAction.org. Toyota Mirai Lawsuit Alleges Automaker, First Element Behind Anticompetitive Pricing Scheme for Hydrogen Fuel The complaint also cited a clean-hydrogen station built by California State University, Los Angeles, which it alleged Toyota worked to block from serving the public in order to keep cheaper, water-derived hydrogen off the market.12Carscoops. Toyota Accused of Monopolizing Hydrogen Market in Class Action Lawsuit Claims invoked the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.10ClassAction.org. Nunez et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

The case was short-lived. It was dismissed without prejudice on November 20, 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties, leaving open the possibility that the claims could be refiled.13PacerMonitor. Alejandro Nunez et al v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. et al

The $5.7 Billion RICO Case

The most aggressive complaint was filed October 31, 2025. In Aminah Kamran et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-09542), attorney Jason Ingber represents three named owners and a proposed class of all California buyers and lessees of 2016 through 2025 Mirais. The 142-page complaint seeks $5.7 billion and invokes the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.14Electrek. Hydrogen Mafia: Toyota Faces $5.7 Billion RICO Lawsuit

The complaint accuses Toyota, its financing arm Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and several California dealerships of running a fraudulent enterprise that hid safety problems while marketing and financing the vehicles. The alleged concealed defects include:

The RICO theory leans on a 2014 deferred prosecution agreement in which Toyota paid $1.2 billion and admitted misleading consumers about unintended-acceleration problems tied to floor mats and sticky throttle pedals, agreeing to truthfully report safety issues going forward.17U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Criminal Charge Against Toyota Motor Corporation and Deferred Prosecution Agreement The plaintiffs argue Toyota violated the spirit of that agreement by concealing Mirai defects. The deferral period itself was three years and expired around 2017.18Carnegie Mellon University. Toyota UA Slides

The $5.7 billion figure reflects treble damages, the tripling RICO allows when a pattern of racketeering is proven. It is the amount sought, not any court award. Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint, and in February 2026 a federal magistrate judge issued an order to show cause after plaintiffs missed their deadline to oppose that motion, warning the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute.19Justia. Aminah Kamran et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., Order to Show Cause The outcome of that order has not been reported in the available record.

The Collections Problem for Owners Who Stopped Paying

A separate thread has caught owners who paused payments while the litigation moved forward. Ingber and multiple owners say a Toyota attorney sent written assurances that no action would be taken against owners who stopped paying during the lawsuits. Some of those same owners were then reported to credit bureaus and contacted by collection agencies.20Black Enterprise. Toyota Owners Allege Non-Payment Forced Them in Collections

Anthony Escobedo reported a 100-point drop in his credit score that blocked him from a loan for medical care. Julie Doumit, who had 46 months of on-time payments, said Toyota reported her to collections the month after promising in writing not to do so, costing her 70 points. Some Toyota representatives attributed the reports to “missed” internal notes about paused payments, and certain individual cases were resolved once owners contacted the company directly. Ingber called the episode a “fiasco within the fiasco.”20Black Enterprise. Toyota Owners Allege Non-Payment Forced Them in Collections

What Toyota Is Saying

Toyota has acknowledged the fueling difficulties while distancing itself from the hydrogen network. A company spokesperson said Toyota “recognizes that certain Mirai customers in California may experience refueling challenges” and is working with affected customers “case-by-case.” The company has emphasized that it does not operate hydrogen stations and is “largely at the mercy of the station providers.”21InsideEVs. Toyota Mirai Hydrogen Stations Close

In at least one arbitration where an owner sought a buyback, Toyota argued that “no defect in workmanship or materials have been found” and that station availability is “beyond the scope of this warranty-related arbitral forum.” Toyota has said it provides educational resources for dealerships on hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure. Chief Technical Officer Hiroki Nakajima has publicly admitted the Mirai has “not been successful.”21InsideEVs. Toyota Mirai Hydrogen Stations Close The company has offered some individual owners gas-powered loaner vehicles and fuel reimbursement and directs affected customers to its Brand Engagement Center.5KTLA. From the Next Prius to Paperweight: Hydrogen Cars Exasperate Owners, Prompt Lawsuit Against Toyota Neither Toyota nor First Element has made detailed public statements responding to the specific allegations in the suits.

Where Things Stand

Of the three cases, Nunez has been dismissed without prejudice, Caluwe is on a schedule that pushes Toyota’s next response into August 2026 and a scheduling conference into November 2026, and Kamran faces a pending motion to dismiss complicated by a missed opposition deadline. No class has been certified. No damages have been awarded. For the thousands of California Mirai owners still making payments on vehicles they struggle to fuel, drive, or resell, these lawsuits are the main open avenue for compensation.