Mitsubishi Class Action Lawsuit
A lawsuit said Mitsubishi sold vehicles with defective airbag control units that could fail or misfire, while hiding the risk and overstating safety in marketing.
What happens next with the Mitsubishi settlement
The claim deadline passed on May 21, 2026. New claims for this settlement are no longer being accepted.
The court approved the settlement on April 22, 2025. Nothing is paid out until that approval is final.
Payments come after approval, and after any appeals. Anyone who objected to the settlement can ask a higher court to look at it again — an appeal — and that has to finish first. Eligible payments are sent once approval is final, and the stretch from a claim deadline to money in hand often runs a year or more. It varies from one settlement to the next.
Filed this claim with Chimo? The status of your claim is on the claims page in your account.
Settlements you can still claim in November 2026
.svg.png){kind=logo}
Toyota
$250
Hyundai
$350
Ford
$6,000
Mitsubishi Class Action Lawsuit
Mitsubishi owners and lessees, led by Tiffany Ecklor, Gaylynn Sanchez, Michael Nearing, and John Sancomb, sued Mitsubishi, saying that their vehicles' airbag control units were defective and could fail during crashes. The Mitsubishi Airbags class action case is part of In re ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before Judge John A. Kronstadt.
In the Mitsubishi Airbags lawsuit details, plaintiffs allege that vehicles were equipped with DS84 airbag control units prone to electrical overstress, causing airbags and seatbelts to fail or deploy improperly. Plaintiffs claim Mitsubishi and suppliers like ZF TRW and STMicroelectronics knew about the defect but continued selling vehicles while overstating safety in marketing and labeling. Mitsubishi denies all claims and allegations of wrongdoing, and the court did not decide who was right.
The multidistrict litigation was set up on August 8, 2019, and the operative consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2022. Mitsubishi settled, and the court granted final approval on April 22, 2025. The class is represented by co-lead counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Baron & Budd.
These Mitsubishi Airbags legal claims focus on consumer fraud, product liability, and unjust enrichment, covering purchasers and lessees of affected Mitsubishi vehicles equipped with the allegedly defective airbag systems.
Mitsubishi Class Action Settlement - $3,500,000
The latest Mitsubishi Airbags settlement update: Mitsubishi agreed to an $8,500,000 non-reversionary settlement fund to resolve claims that DS84 airbag control units in some of its vehicles could fail during crashes. Mitsubishi denies the allegations, and the court did not decide who was right. The court granted final approval on April 22, 2025.
Besides cash, the settlement requires Mitsubishi to run a settlement inspection program: once the settlement was approved, Mitsubishi was to inspect class vehicles when notified of a qualifying incident, such as an airbag deploying or failing to deploy in a crash.
The Mitsubishi Airbags settlement eligibility covers individuals who owned or leased the 2013–2017 Lancer, 2013–2015 Lancer Evolution or Lancer Ralliart, 2013–2016 Lancer Sportback, or 2013 Outlander. Eligible class members could claim an equal per-vehicle cash payment, estimated at up to $250. The claim deadline was May 23, 2026. New claims can no longer be filed.
Another notable element is that, according to the complaint, some recalled vehicles were fitted with replacement units containing the same allegedly defective component, which became a central issue in the claims.
Claims closed: May 21, 2026
Airbags Class Action Payout: Up to $250 per vehicle
The Mitsubishi Airbags settlement amount per vehicle depended on how many valid claims were filed. After attorneys' fees, costs, service awards and administration costs, the rest of the $8,500,000 fund was to be split evenly among class vehicles with a valid claim, and the notice estimated up to $250 per vehicle. The amount did not depend on whether an airbag had failed.
If an original owner who bought a vehicle new and a later owner both filed valid claims for it, the original owner was allocated 60% and the later owners shared 40%. On a $250 allocation, that is $150 and $100.
The settlement is non-reversionary. If money was left after the first distribution, up to $750 more could be redistributed to class members with valid claims, if economically feasible; otherwise it goes to a court-approved cy pres recipient.
The court granted final approval on April 22, 2025, and the claim period ran until May 23, 2026. Payments to eligible claimants were to be sent after the claim period closed.
Airbag Class Action Payouts
Airbags Class Action Eligibility
To qualify under Mitsubishi Airbags class action eligibility, claimants had to have owned or leased one of the Mitsubishi class vehicles listed below, originally sold or leased in the United States, on or before November 1, 2024. According to the complaint, the alleged defect is tied to DS84 units vulnerable to electrical overstress, which may not trigger dashboard warnings—making the VIN and ownership critical identifiers.
Claimants who had the Unique ID from a postcard or email notice did not need documentation. Others could be asked to provide documentation to show their ownership or lease of the vehicle, such as the vehicle title, registration, purchase agreement, lease agreement, insurance documentation, or other documentation showing both their name and the VIN.
Mitsubishi Class Vehicles
Mitsubishi Car
Year
Lancer
2013–2017
Lancer Evolution
2013–2015
Lancer Ralliart
2013–2015
Lancer Sportback
2013–2016
Outlander
2013
FAQ
The settlement covers the 2013–2017 Lancer, 2013–2015 Lancer Evolution and Lancer Ralliart, 2013–2016 Lancer Sportback, and 2013 Outlander, which the lawsuit says have defective ZF-TRW airbag control units.
Owners could enter their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on the official settlement website, ACUSettlement.com, to check whether it was a class vehicle. Eligibility for cash payments was determined by VIN.
According to the lawsuit, the airbag control unit's DS84 chip is vulnerable to electrical overstress, which can stop airbags and seatbelts from working in a crash. Mitsubishi denies the allegations, and the court did not decide who was right.
Yes. The complaint alleges the defect can also cause airbags to deploy when they should not. That is an allegation: Mitsubishi denies it, and the settlement includes no finding that the defect exists.
Yes. The class covered everyone who owned or leased a class vehicle on or before November 1, 2024, whether or not anything went wrong. Cash payments were split evenly per vehicle and did not depend on an airbag failure.
Once the court granted final approval, Mitsubishi was to run a settlement inspection program, inspecting class vehicles when notified of a qualifying incident such as an airbag deploying or failing to deploy.
The notice estimated up to $250 per class vehicle, split evenly among vehicles with valid claims after fees and costs. If an original owner and a later owner both claimed one vehicle, the original owner was allocated 60%.
They could still qualify, because the class included people who previously owned or leased a class vehicle. When several people claimed one vehicle, the original owner who bought it new was allocated 60% and the later owners 40%.
Related cases
Sources
These are the court's own records for this case. They are hosted here unchanged, so you can check anything on this page against the documents themselves.
- Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, Volume One (Factual Allegations) (PDF) Complaint · Filed September 28, 2022 · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · Case 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM
- Order Granting Final Approval of the Mitsubishi Class Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards (PDF) Court order · Filed April 22, 2025 · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · Case 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM
The full case file is on the court docket: view the docket.