Globally, from 2009 to 2015, Volkswagen installed its “defeat device software” in over 11 million cars with engine type EA 189.

Volkswagen has falsely promoted, and is still falsely promoting, a “clean diesel” image and as a result, has commanded a premium for its vehicles.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that NOx emissions were up to 40 times higher when manipulated vehicles were not in test mode. Volkswagen themselves admitted that the level of NOx emissions in these different modes was “noticeable”.

This unethical behaviour misled the authorities and let car companies portray their cars as cleaner and more efficient than they actually were.

Apart from affecting your wallet, this may have had a negative impact on your health and the environment.

With its unethical conduct, VW has engaged in consumer fraud. It must be held accountable.

Volkswagen’s response in the United States
Volkswagen’s software in its EA 189 engines impacted 500,000 cars in the United States.

Volkswagen has admitted fault in America. It has agreed to pay over $25 billion USD in compensation to owners, dealers, regulators and states.

Volkswagen’s response in Europe
In 2015, it was revealed that Volkswagen intentionally cheated the Euro 5 standards by employing defeat device software so their vehicles with EA 189 engines would appear to pass emissions tests.

Very recently, it transpired that Volkswagen has also cheated, and is still cheating, the Euro 6 standards. This includes Porsche and Audi vehicles equipped with EA 897 diesel engines and many VW vehicles equipped with engine type EA 288 (successor of the EA 189 engine). Therefore, the DEJF has expanded the scope of our claim and opened up registration for drivers of Volkswagen-cars equipped with EA 288 and EA 897 engines as well. The developments around EA 288 and EA 897 are being called Dieselgate 2.0 in Germany. This shows that the case is far from over.

While there are no differences in the defective vehicles sold in America and Europe, Volkswagen has refused to accept responsibility for the harm it has caused European consumers.

No meaningful compensation has been offered to European Volkswagen-owners, regardless of whether they drove a vehicle with engine types EA 189, EA288 or EA 897.

Case study: The Netherlands
In the Netherlands the number of affected cars is at least 170,000. The Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets determined in its decisions of 28 November 2017 and 4 December 2018 regarding cars with EA 189 engines that this manipulation was intentional, systemic and that Volkswagen AG had engaged in unfair commercial practices. Volkswagen remained silent and even continued to sell large numbers of affected vehicles with engine types EA 288 and EA 897.

What we’re doing
As a large international corporation, Volkswagen relies on the fact that a single person does not have the resources to challenge their wrongful conduct. Unlike the USA, legislation for collective redress in Europe has been fragmented until now, causing Volkswagen to benefit from lack of coordinated litigation in Europe. Now, with the WAMCA-legislation in the Netherlands, the DEJF is able to represent all affected Europeans for the corporate wrongdoing of Volkswagen and related parties.

In March 2020, the DEJF filed a writ alleging that Volkswagen AG intentionally and systemically manipulated at least 8.5 million European vehicles to pass emissions tests – 17 times more than in the United States, including cars manufactured by Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT, Skoda and Porsche.

Specifically, we allege VW installed defeat device software in over 11 million cars worldwide with engine type EA 189, EA 288 and EA 897 since 2009.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOLKSWAGEN ET AL.

WAMCA proceedings with the Amsterdam district court

• On 13 March 2020, the Foundation has served the writ of summons against the defendants, being Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Skoda Auto, Seat, Robert Bosch, the Dutch importer Pon and a number of individual dealers.
• On 10 June 2020, the first hearing date took place. On this date, the defendants and their lawyers have introduced themselves in court and the Foundation has served the exhibits to the writ of summons.
• On 17 June 2020, Foundation Car Claim has filed an interim motion for, inter alia, joinder in the proceedings by the Foundation and a stay of these proceedings. On 27 July, the Foundation has served a statement of defense in the motion proceedings in which it took the position that the claims of Car Claim should be turned down.
• The court has scheduled the first substantive hearing to take place on 18 June 2021. During this hearing, inter alia, the further course of the proceedings shall be discussed.

Proceedings in Belgium

• On 7 August 2020, the Foundation initiated proceedings at the court of Brussels, Belgium against inter alia, Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda, Seat, Porsche and Robert Bosch. The purpose of these proceedings is to safeguard the interests of the Belgian car owners who participate in the Foundation’s actions. The Foundation has requested the court to stay these proceedings until a decision shall have been made in the Dutch proceedings regarding the international competition of the court.
• On September 14 2020, the Foundation has filed a request for interim joinder in these proceedings in order to allow an additional number of Belgian participants in these proceedings.
• On 23 October 2020 a first hearing has taken place. During this hearing, the court has stayed the proceedings for an indefinite period, in order to await the developments in the Dutch proceedings.

Proceedings in France

• On 7 September 2020, the Foundation initiated proceedings at the court of Soissons, France, against inter alia, Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda, Seat, Porsche and Robert Bosch. The purpose of these proceedings is to safeguard the interests of the French car owners who participate in the Foundation’s actions. The Foundation will require the court to stay these proceedings until a decision shall have been made in the Dutch proceedings regarding the international competition of the court.