Volvo can’t seem to catch a break. Hot on the heels of an NHTSA advisory urging owners of various plug-in hybrid and electric models to stop using ‘B mode’ , aka One Pedal Drive, until a software fix is in place, the company is now facing a class action lawsuit over safety concerns in its all-electric XC40 Recharge.

Filed in the United States, the lawsuit alleges that the compact SUV suffers from serious defects, including unintended acceleration, that put both drivers and passengers at risk. More than 100 owners have joined the suit, which demands a jury trial and alleges that Volvo either knew, or should have known, about the problems.

More: Volvo Drivers Warned To Stop Using This Mode Until Urgent Fix Is Installed

At the center of the complaint is lead plaintiff Robert M. Becker, who argues that the XC40 Recharge can unexpectedly surge forward, lurch, or accelerate unintentionally. According to the filing, these incidents are most likely to occur during low-speed driving, when shifting gears, or while using the vehicle’s One Pedal Drive mode.

Becker contends that the defects pose a “substantial risk of accident, injury, or property damage” and that Volvo failed to take appropriate action.

Claims of Prior Knowledge

The lawsuit asserts that Volvo knew, or was reckless for not knowing about, the issue based on pre-release testing, consumer complaints (including for the mechanically-related Polestar 2), dealership service reports, internal engineering assessments, and data from the NHTSA. Despite this, the automaker is accused of downplaying or concealing the full extent of the problem. The complaint further claims that Volvo’s recall efforts were “piecemeal and unduly narrow.”

Lead plaintiff Robert Becker leased a 2024 XC40 Recharge on September 13, 2024 and claims to have experienced multiple instances of the vehicle surging and lurching during normal operation. Less than a month after having the electric SUV, he had to take it to a Volvo dealership to be diagnosed and repaired.

Volvo’s Recalls

The lawsuit points to two recalls issued by Volvo in the US. The first involved a software fault that could lead to a sudden loss of propulsion in XC40 Recharge models, but according to the complaint, it failed to resolve deeper control logic flaws. A second recall targeted 2021–2022 models due to the risk of water entering the accelerator pedal sensor harness. Plaintiffs argue that this recall was too narrow, leaving similar defects in other vehicles unaddressed and failing to correct the core issue.

Review: New Volvo XC40 Recharge P8 Guns For Tesla’s Model Y

Becker is suing Volvo for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs are seeking a mix of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief aimed at correcting the reported defects.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

A 2024 provision under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects reproductive health information from disclosure to law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access. (Photo by Dave Whitney/Getty Images)

Two pending lawsuits over a 2024 federal rule protecting certain reproductive health information from disclosure are on hold while the Trump administration decides whether to appeal a Texas judge’s June decision that declared the rule unlawful and void.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an opinion nullifying the federal rule that shielded reproductive health information from law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access. In this case, Dr. Carmen Purl argued that the U.S. Health and Human Services rule conflicted with the laws requiring her to report child abuse. Purl said in court documents she believes abortion and gender-affirming care fall under the definitions of child abuse.

Purl lives in the judicial district where Kacsmaryk — who has taken anti-abortion stances in the past — is the only judge. His ruling applied nationwide and took effect immediately.

Without the rule, law enforcement officials in states with abortion bans may issue subpoenas for records related to reproductive health care obtained legally in another state, as some have already recently tried to do. According to health policy nonprofit KFF, 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws limiting what reproductive health information can be obtained, but others with legal abortion access do not, such as New Hampshire and Virginia.

Abortion-rights advocates say it’s largely an intimidation tactic meant to sow fear in patients and providers. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022,  anti-abortion attorney Jonathan Mitchell filed nine petitions in Texas seeking to legally question abortion funds, providers and researchers, and two individual women who sought abortions in other states, according to the Texas Tribune.

Carmel Shachar, a Harvard law professor who has extensively researched data privacy and health policy, said it’s possible for a patient to travel to a state with legal access and have that information stored in their medical records that is shared with their providers back home.

“Without the reproductive privacy rule, the concern will be, ‘OK, will some of these states that have taken a very strong stance against abortion be able to pinpoint where residents of their states travel to receive abortion care?’” Shachar said.

Tennessee plaintiffs push for separate ruling after Texas decision

Two lawsuits challenging the legality of the rule are frozen at least until the government’s Aug. 18 deadline to appeal. One case is in Missouri, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the other. Paxton’s office had also challenged the legality of the underlying privacy rule or HIPAA established in 2000, which could have opened more avenues for state investigations if a judge agreed to throw it out. But according to recent court filings, the state is no longer asking the court to do that.

A Tennessee lawsuit includes 17 other states that heavily restrict or ban abortion as plaintiffs. Their attorneys general asked the court to find the 2024 rule unlawful because they said it impedes their right to investigate cases of waste, fraud and abuse. In the most recent court brief, attorneys for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the case can still be decided by U.S. District Judge Katherine Crytzer, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump.

Until judgment is affirmed on appeal and no further appellate review is available or the deadline to appeal passes, “the plaintiff states’ claims remain live and ready for this court to resolve,” the brief said.

Legal organization continues attempts to intervene so they can appeal

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) allows law enforcement to obtain health information for investigation purposes. But the addition of the 2024 provision under former Democratic President Joe Biden prohibited disclosure of protected health information in investigations against any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, or facilitating reproductive health care, to impose criminal or civil liabilities for that conduct, or to identify the person involved in seeking or obtaining that care. It also applied to gender-affirming care.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment. Whether it appeals Kacsmaryk’s ruling is in question, as the Justice Department under Trump did not address whether it thought the 2024 rule was proper and lawful prior to Kacsmaryk’s decision. Attorneys instead said they were reviewing the rule but had no other updates. In the Missouri and Tennessee cases, DOJ attorneys have argued for dismissal for other legal reasons, but also have not defended the 2024 rule itself.

In March, the DOJ dropped the case that argued the federal law mandating stabilizing emergency care should apply to those who need emergency abortion care. And in early June, U.S. Health and Human Services rescinded guidance that said that care should be required in emergencies.

Attorneys for Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, are representing Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, and attempted to intervene in the case because they did not expect the government to defend the rule. If they were allowed to intervene, they could appeal Kacsmaryk’s opinion striking down the rule regardless of the Trump administration’s decision.

Kacsmaryk denied their motion, while a decision in the other three cases is pending. Carrie Flaxman, senior legal adviser for Democracy Forward, said they have appealed that denial to a higher court. Given that the Department of Justice attorneys chose not to defend the rule on the merits in court proceedings, Flaxman said, she thinks they have a good argument for appeal.

Repealing the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the blueprint document for the next presidential administration published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Several prominent anti-abortion organizations were part of the panel that drafted Project 2025, and many of the individuals involved in writing the 900-page document now work for the Trump administration.

Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.

Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on page 597 of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.

While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.

“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a public statement.

The organization identified 200 of its clinics in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.

The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close. 

Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights. 

“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”

The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.

“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”

“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”

Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says

Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”

Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.

In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.

“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.

In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.

The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.

“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”

Tesla’s troubles are stacking up like traffic on the 405 during a power outage. Between falling sales, public backlash, and a growing list of lawsuits including one in France over Musk’s antics, the electric automaker finds itself in yet another international legal mess. This time, it’s not just the usual social media outcry or a shareholder spat, but a pair of class actions in Australia, with customers calling out everything from phantom braking to misleading marketing.

We first reported on the lawsuit back in February, and new developments show it has officially made its way into the Federal Court. Around 10,000 Tesla owners in Australia have now joined the class action, suggesting that concerns about the vehicles are far from isolated.

Read: Tesla Sued In Australia For Overpromising Range, Phantom Braking, Misleading FSD

The lawsuit, brought by law firm JDA Saddler, claims that Tesla vehicles have a troubling tendency to slam on the brakes without warning. One owner told ABC News his car abruptly slowed down while he was driving on a major highway, an experience that’s becoming all too familiar among Tesla drivers.

Rebecca Jancauskas of JDA Saddler says the firm has received numerous reports of vehicles braking suddenly while traveling at highway speeds at 100 or even 110 km/h (62 to 68 mph). And importantly, these incidents aren’t limited to when Autopilot is turned on. Drivers have reported the same problem even when they’re fully in control.

“Drivers have reported feeling completely terrified when their vehicles have braked suddenly, and it has led in some cases to collisions,” Jancauskas told ABC. “We’ve had many reports of people who registered for this class action, telling us that they’ve been driving with their hands on the vehicle, fully alert, and these issues have occurred nonetheless.”

Claims About Range and Autonomy Under Fire

Beyond the braking problem, the lawsuit also targets Tesla’s advertised driving range. It says the brand’s EV “lack the ability to achieve, or come close to achieving, the advertised maximum range or the range displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard when the battery level is greater than 50%.” The lawsuit claims that Tesla has known its vehicles cannot achieve their mileage claims for several years, yet has done nothing to address it.

In addition, the lawsuit takes issue with Tesla’s Autopilot system, noting “the hardware on Tesla vehicles is incapable of supporting fully autonomous or close to autonomous driving.”

Although more than 10,000 owners have signed on to the class action, Australia’s federal infrastructure department says it has received only six formal complaints about phantom braking. That discrepancy raises questions about the reporting process, but it doesn’t necessarily undermine the broader concerns voiced by Tesla drivers across the country.

It hasn’t been an easy ride for Toyota and Subaru’s first major foray into the EV market. The Toyota bZ4X and Subaru Solterra stand out for their unconventional styling, but unfortunately, not for reasons that win over buyers. Now, Toyota has been hit with a lawsuit in the US that claims the vehicles have 12-volt batteries prone to premature failure, and that the carmaker knew about the problem before it began selling the vehicles.

Filed in California, the class action lawsuit targets 2023 to 2025 model year Toyota bZ4X and Subaru Solterra models. According to the complaint, the 12-volt batteries in these EVs are prone to draining quickly and dying altogether. Although the vehicles are still under warranty and dealers have reportedly been replacing the batteries, the lawsuit alleges that replacements are just as unreliable.

Read: Toyota Kills bZ4X To Welcome New bZ

As with over EVs, the 12-volt battery in question isn’t the one powering the car’s electric motors. It handles secondary systems like the windows, seats, HVAC fans, radio, lights, and wipers. It’s also believed to activate a relay that connects the main battery pack to the electric drivetrain. In other words, it may be small, but when it fails, the car is effectively dead in the water.

Just a single plaintiff has been named in the lawsuit: John Wade. He bought a 2023Toyota bZ4X in March 2023 and says he began experiencing issues within weeks. According to the filing, a series of warning lights lit up the dashboard before the vehicle completely shut down, requiring roadside assistance just to get moving again. Less than 2,000 miles later, the 12-volt battery failed a second time. This time, even a jumpstart couldn’t revive it.

Wade claims he was forced to tow his EV to a nearby Toyota dealership, which replaced the 12-volt battery. In December 2024, this replacement battery died. While attempting to diagnose the problem on his own, Wade paid $4,800 for a Level 2 home charger as he believed the issues may have stemmed from “not using a sufficient EV battery charger.”

Toyota now has until July 3 to officially respond to the lawsuit. For both Toyota and Subaru, the case raises questions about how well early EV issues are being addressed, particularly when they involve something as basic as the 12-volt battery system.