Globally, roughly between 2009 and 2019, Mercedes installed impermissible “defeat device software” in millions of diesel vehicles. According to Mercedes almost its entire fleet of Mercedes diesels in Europe that are Euro 5 or Euro 6 approved were subject to a recall. The purpose of this software was to detect laboratory emissions testing and/or to reduce the use of AdBlue.

When the standardised emissions test conditions were present, the defeat device software allowed the vehicles to maximise efficiency of the emissions reduction technology, including AdBlue dosing and engine gas recirculation valves, to falsely comply with the NOx emission limits set forth by the Euro 5 and Euro 6 emission standards.

In real world driving, however, the affected vehicles grossly exceed the legal limits for NOx emissions. This was done to decrease maintenance costs, stretch AdBlue refills to standard service intervals, and make the vehicles more competitive in the market.

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

With its unethical conduct, Mercedes has engaged in consumer fraud and therefore must be held accountable.

Mercedes Response
In the summer of 2017, Mercedes voluntarily recalled 3 million European Diesel vehicles, which accounted for almost all of its Euro 5 and Euro 6 vehicles. In the summer of 2018, the German Federal Motor Transportation Authority (“KBA”) mandated the first two mandatory recalls covering over 684,000 vehicles including the Mercedes Vito, C-Class, E-Class and Sprinter models.

2019 brought several more mandatory recalls affecting over 300,000 more vehicles including the Sprinter and the SUV model GLK.

In the fall of 2019, Mercedes agreed to pay an 870 million euro fine to the German Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart when it admitted a breach of supervisory duties that resulted in emissions violations.

What we are doing
As a large international corporation, Mercedes relies on the fact that a single person does not have the resources to challenge their wrongful conduct. Until recently, collective redress in Europe has been fragmented. This has allowed wrongdoers like Mercedes to avoid liability to its customers who have suffered financial damage by way of decreased resell values, increased maintenance costs, and post-fix frustration of having to refill AdBlue every 13,000-14,000 km as opposed to 30,000 km service intervals. Now, with the WAMCA-legislation in the Netherlands, the DEJF is able to represent all affected Europeans for the corporate wrongdoing of Mercedes and related parties.

CURRENT STATUS:

The defendants have to submit a statement of defence in appeal on the admissibility of Emissions Justice and applicable law.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAIMLER AG

• On 31 July 2020, Emissions Justice served a writ of summons on the defendants, Mercedes (previously: Daimler A.G.), Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. the Dutch importer of Mercedes cars (previously: Mercedes-Benz Vans Nederland B.V. and Mercedes-Benz Cars Nederland B.V.) and a number of official Dutch Mercedes dealers.
• On 21 August 2020, Stichting Car Claim, another foundation that represents the interests of the victims of the diesel emissions scandal, requested the Amsterdam district court to extend the three months period during which other organizations may start their own action regarding the same case in order to candidate themselves for the position of exclusive representative. By decision of 30 September 2020, the court extended this term with two months for Car Claim.
• On 30 September 2020, the defendants appeared in the proceedings before the Amsterdam district court.
• On 30 December 2020 both Car Claim and Stichting Emission Claim, another foundation, also served writs of summons against Mercedes, and in the case of Car Claim, also the car dealers.
• On 21 April 2021, the court adopted the procedural order. The procedural order can be found here. The first phase of the proceedings will deal with jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court and applicability of the WAMCA collective action regime.
• On 11 August 2021, the defendants filed their statements of defense regarding jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court and applicability of the WAMCA collective action regime.
• On 25 March 2022, a hearing of parties took place. The hearing focused on jurisdiction of the Amsterdam district court and applicability of the WAMCA collective action regime.
•