Abgasskandal bei Daimler - Kaum noch ein Mercedes ohne Rückruf!

The wave of recalls at Daimler shows no signs of abating.

Just in June of this year, numerous Mercedes diesel models of the A and B classes, as well as the C, E and S classes, were recalled by the Federal Motor Transport Authority. At the end of August, recalls followed for E-Class models built between 2010 and 2014. Now the wave of recalls at Daimler Benz continues unabated.

Recall after recall - Daimler emissions scandal continues

Due to illegal shutdown devices in the exhaust system, there are current recalls for the following Mercedes diesel models:

C-Class year of construction 2009 – 2010
E-Class year of construction 2009 – 2010
GLC year of construction 2015 – 2016
GLE year of construction 2015 – 2017
GLK year of construction 2014 – 2015
GLS year of construction 2015 – 2017
ML year of construction 2015 – 2016

Many owners of Daimler Benz diesel vehicles also receive mail from the manufacturer. Daimler AG itself writes to vehicle owners about a voluntary customer service measure. But what is behind it?

How voluntary is a voluntary Mercedes customer service measure?

We ask how voluntary a so-called "voluntary customer service measure" really is! Just one thing right away - for you as a customer it is definitely voluntary, even if some car dealerships or authorized workshops would like to tell you otherwise. However, drivers should be careful here.

“First we received two letters telling us to make an appointment at one of the manufacturer’s authorized workshops, then they even called me at home and said I absolutely had to come to the workshop!” This was the story of a totally confused client. The manufacturer’s letter said something about a “voluntary Mercedes customer service measure,” but now the client was being put under pressure. Why? What happens if you voluntary recall does not comply?

Voluntary customer service measure – not so voluntary after all?

The lawyers at Rogert & Ulbrich have received such calls almost every day this year and advise their clients not to drive to your car manufacturer's authorized repair shop, not even to change your tires. Why?

Tobias Ulbrich: “It has happened that one of these supposedly voluntary updates was simply installed secretly when changing tires.”

Why do lawyers advise against these updates?

"To put it very simply, the cars are not designed to allow more dirt to be fed back into the engine after the software update. This can lead to consequential damage for which the manufacturers still do not want to provide a guarantee. And: the cars are not clean even after the update!"

Partner Dr. Marco Rogert

Daimler software update poses risk of consequential damage

This is proven, for example, in the case of VW, by a recent recall for the VW EOS, which was specifically recalled in September 2020 after the software update because compliance with the nitrogen oxide limit values is not certain even after the software update.

In January 2020, the ZDF magazine "Frontal" reported that Daimler's voluntary service campaigns did not have the desired effect and did not reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 25-30 percent, but actually made them worse. Updates therefore achieve nothing at all, except possibly cause even more problems.

"It is important to know that no car manufacturer and not even the Federal Motor Transport Authority can take a vehicle out of service! Please do not trust any information like this on the manufacturer's website or in workshops. You only have to react when you receive a letter from your local road traffic authority, not before!"

partner Tobias Ulbrich

But why do workshops and manufacturers want to entice customers to update their software?

Quite simply, it makes it more difficult to provide evidence in court. If evidence is to be taken in a trial as to whether an illegal switch-off device was installed before the update, it is not so easy to determine how the software was programmed before the update. The car manufacturer being sued must then help with this, because only they know what was subsequently installed. This is then usually refused under flimsy excuses.

This is how the Daimler AG in a case that it was a matter of business and trade secrets that could not be disclosed. In this case, however, the court did not accept this. The Stuttgart Regional Court used this very reason to hang the car manufacturer and sentenced Daimler to repayment of the purchase price of EUR 45,000 minus usage compensation for kilometers driven. In the ruling, the Stuttgart judges stated that Daimler's operational and business secrets must also be disclosed. (LG Stuttgart, Az.14 O 89/20, ruling of October 9, 2020). It remains to be hoped that more judges will agree with this view.