This is a horrible take because the exact same cars in the Canadian market had the correct anti-theft. They didn’t put it in the US simply to save money because it wasn’t legally required, and in the end they wrecked their rep, got fined, had cars be uninsurable etc etc. they gambled and lost.
The company chose a couple pennies profit over their customers ability to not be robbed of their vehicles. Now they’re paying for that poor choice.
A company should care about its customers experience with their product, not sure what that has to do with my personal thoughts of anyone in a supply chain.
I mean, why should a company care about its customers or their experiences? The point is selling them the product, maybe selling them another later on.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people act like companies are or are supposed to be anything more than profit generation machines. It's like complaining a mechanical watch doesn't make phonecalls.
nah man. With cars its the worst place to piss of people. they will tell everybody and everybody will quickly adopt an attitude about that car. It Dramatically affects the sales of the car and will affect it for years and years. Cars have narrow profit margins for new vehicles. So even a small bump will ruin a whole line up.
On one hand, they aren't incorrect in that crime does need to actually be punished, and the courts these days seem to be more focused on political showings and letting out clear dangers for the sake of 'not being racist'.
On the other hand, cutting a safety feature is a damn stupid thing to do.
I kind of doubt that car theft doesn’t exist in South Korea.. but even if that were miraculously the case, if they want to sell in our market, then they have to sell automobiles appropriate for our market.
I don’t doubt that Korea is a far safer country than the US. Asians tend to be very law abiding in the US as well. However our demographic is SLIGHTLY different from that of Korea and that is a well known fact to Korean business people. If they want to sell cars in the US, they should design them for the conditions existing in the US and not for conditions that exist in Korea.
It’s like if Boeing made planes that cannot take off in Africa or India because Seattle hardly ever exceeds 90F and doesn’t ever get to 120F
South Korea is also of one culture and ethnic group, way smaller than us, so any comparison with the US and them is dishonest and in bad taste. If you see anybody trying to draw comparisons between the US and a smaller monocultural society just know all logic is out the window lol.
This is a bad take. You shouldn’t be able to sue a car company because they lack some security features which make them easily stolen in an attempt to keep prices down.
Why is it up to the car maker to provide anti-theft? If someone wants to buy a car with no anti-theft, then that's their choice. The manufacture shouldn't be sued for this. This is really stupid
They have a good point here actually. US cities would much rather punish the masses instead of actually criminals. This is bs that makes our lives more expensive.
Nah consumer protection and suing companies that engage in negligence is one of the things I'm okay with the govt doing, and I'm a solid conservative. Its basically the state acting as attorney in a class action especially in case of highly regulated industries like transportation.
Apparently they elected not to install common anti theft devices that most cars use today, and that Kia includes in vehicles in other markets.
From Google on negligence
Duty of care: a vehicle being stolen is a reasonably expected hazard of car ownership so it means the manufacturer has an expectation of including at least some means of preventing it
Breach of duty: by deliberately choosing to not b include suitable anti theft measure it can be argued they knowingly breached duty of care.
Proof of link to damages: it's established that the lack of anti theft measures lead to a sharp increase in these types of vehicles being stolen.
Proof of damages themselves: theft of property, loss of time and wages, property damage, legal costs, etc...
Okay, i'll concede that the issue is valid for a class action suit. But why is the state doing it instead of a private law firm? And how is the damages restitution distributed?
Most states have some kind of consumer protection agency and laws on the books that handles things like this. Gives them more power to assemble a class for a suit and push fines/ damages I guess.
Plus from an article I read it wasn't just NY suing, it was something like 35 state AGs suing with the 9m just being NY's cut, so that scale is way bigger.
As for distribution of restitution, dunno. I'm not a lawyer I just have Google and a decent head for legal jargon. Presumably affected parties would have to sign off on being part of the class of affected people in the suit prior to its going forward like in any other class action. State AGs would have a pretty comprehensive list of vehicle thefts then just sort by make and model.
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This is a horrible take because the exact same cars in the Canadian market had the correct anti-theft. They didn’t put it in the US simply to save money because it wasn’t legally required, and in the end they wrecked their rep, got fined, had cars be uninsurable etc etc. they gambled and lost.
That’s interesting I didn’t know that. Interesting case of the market self regulating, though the process was not victimless.
Yea Hyundai/Kia likely saved almost nothing cutting out the features for only the US market and wound up hurting themselves and their customers a ton.
Just another reminder that companies don’t care about their customers
I don't know why that is required to be a reminder. Why would they? Do you care about the random people in the whole supply chain?
It’s not a requirement, not sure what you mean.
The company chose a couple pennies profit over their customers ability to not be robbed of their vehicles. Now they’re paying for that poor choice.
A company should care about its customers experience with their product, not sure what that has to do with my personal thoughts of anyone in a supply chain.
I mean, why should a company care about its customers or their experiences? The point is selling them the product, maybe selling them another later on.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people act like companies are or are supposed to be anything more than profit generation machines. It's like complaining a mechanical watch doesn't make phonecalls.
Did you sell the mechanical watch to a person by telling them it also makes phone calls?
Well I dont know if you know this, but if rhe customers decide tour product sucks they stop buying it. And that tends to impact profits.
Yeah, but that's assuming they expected the customer to buy from them consistently. Cars are not a routine purchase.
And you don't need to be moral to have a good product, look at Amazon. They're immoral as can be and have a good product.
nah man. With cars its the worst place to piss of people. they will tell everybody and everybody will quickly adopt an attitude about that car. It Dramatically affects the sales of the car and will affect it for years and years. Cars have narrow profit margins for new vehicles. So even a small bump will ruin a whole line up.
Amazon is a service.
Never worked with cars huh? Repeat customers is something they focus pretty significant effort on
On one hand, they aren't incorrect in that crime does need to actually be punished, and the courts these days seem to be more focused on political showings and letting out clear dangers for the sake of 'not being racist'.
On the other hand, cutting a safety feature is a damn stupid thing to do.
Yea definitely agree, the thieves should be punished but the company should also be held liable. Which is what seems to be happening, works for me.
Samsung controls South Korea they can't talk
Oh wow all people follow the law in Korea?? So they don’t have police right? 0% crime rate??
Didn't you know America invented the idea of crime when Jonathan Criminal first stole a loaf of bread in 1847.
Just like how America invented slavery back 4,000 years before the country existed.
Some say John Crime was a descendant of John Slave
Oh they have so much worse. The chaebol.
Officially, it's "a large Korean industrial conglomerate run by a family."
You know every criticism thrown at Trump? How he's just lining his own pockets? That's been Korea since 1950, all thanks to the chaebols.
I kind of doubt that car theft doesn’t exist in South Korea.. but even if that were miraculously the case, if they want to sell in our market, then they have to sell automobiles appropriate for our market.
Idk about car theft specifically but theft in general is astonishingly low
My mom had an '80 Datsun when I was a kid.
Even it had locks on the doors and trunk.
Yes Korea is a mono ethnic society. This makes it much easier for them
I don’t doubt that Korea is a far safer country than the US. Asians tend to be very law abiding in the US as well. However our demographic is SLIGHTLY different from that of Korea and that is a well known fact to Korean business people. If they want to sell cars in the US, they should design them for the conditions existing in the US and not for conditions that exist in Korea.
It’s like if Boeing made planes that cannot take off in Africa or India because Seattle hardly ever exceeds 90F and doesn’t ever get to 120F
South Korea is also of one culture and ethnic group, way smaller than us, so any comparison with the US and them is dishonest and in bad taste. If you see anybody trying to draw comparisons between the US and a smaller monocultural society just know all logic is out the window lol.
This is a bad take. You shouldn’t be able to sue a car company because they lack some security features which make them easily stolen in an attempt to keep prices down.
AG James is trash
Are we acting like Kia isn’t dogshit
Why is it up to the car maker to provide anti-theft? If someone wants to buy a car with no anti-theft, then that's their choice. The manufacture shouldn't be sued for this. This is really stupid
They have a good point here actually. US cities would much rather punish the masses instead of actually criminals. This is bs that makes our lives more expensive.
Funny james is both America bad for this and America good for going after trump🤣
Hot take but the state governments suing the car makers was absolute bullshit.
Nah consumer protection and suing companies that engage in negligence is one of the things I'm okay with the govt doing, and I'm a solid conservative. Its basically the state acting as attorney in a class action especially in case of highly regulated industries like transportation.
Is making a product "too easily stolen" really negligence though?
Apparently they elected not to install common anti theft devices that most cars use today, and that Kia includes in vehicles in other markets.
From Google on negligence
Duty of care: a vehicle being stolen is a reasonably expected hazard of car ownership so it means the manufacturer has an expectation of including at least some means of preventing it
Breach of duty: by deliberately choosing to not b include suitable anti theft measure it can be argued they knowingly breached duty of care.
Proof of link to damages: it's established that the lack of anti theft measures lead to a sharp increase in these types of vehicles being stolen.
Proof of damages themselves: theft of property, loss of time and wages, property damage, legal costs, etc...
Okay, i'll concede that the issue is valid for a class action suit. But why is the state doing it instead of a private law firm? And how is the damages restitution distributed?
Most states have some kind of consumer protection agency and laws on the books that handles things like this. Gives them more power to assemble a class for a suit and push fines/ damages I guess.
Plus from an article I read it wasn't just NY suing, it was something like 35 state AGs suing with the 9m just being NY's cut, so that scale is way bigger.
As for distribution of restitution, dunno. I'm not a lawyer I just have Google and a decent head for legal jargon. Presumably affected parties would have to sign off on being part of the class of affected people in the suit prior to its going forward like in any other class action. State AGs would have a pretty comprehensive list of vehicle thefts then just sort by make and model.
What's bullshit is they haven't done shit about the cars putting illegally-bright LED headlights on everything. That's actually killing Americans.
There are legal restrictions on the amount of lumens produced by headlights?