Neue Hoffnung für Spätkäufer von Diesel-Betrugsfahrzeugen

Ingolstadt Regional Court speaks plainly.

In a sensational judgment of 12 November 2020, case no. 81 O 571/19, the Ingolstadt Regional Court ruled in favour of a plaintiff in proceedings against the Audi AG was right. It ordered Audi AG to repay the purchase price and take back the car – even though the plaintiff had bought his car in January 2016, i.e. AFTER the announcement of the emissions scandal acquired.

The plaintiff bought the Audi A4 Avant 2.0 l TDI used with 17,500 km for 28,150 EUR in January 2016, almost four months after the emissions scandal became known.
In a similar case, the Federal Court of Justice rejected the claim because, in the opinion of the Senate, Volkswagen AG's behavior had changed so much since the ad hoc announcement was published on September 22, 2015 that it could no longer be considered immoral. The courts have so far unanimously followed this view and dismissed the lawsuits on this basis.

Judgment clearly differentiates between the VAG car brands

The judgment of the Ingolstadt Regional Court correctly differentiates between the individual brands within the Volkswagen Group and therefore comes to a different conclusion.

Contrary to Audi AG's opinion, its conduct does not mean that the accusation of immorality made against it is no longer justified.

The court did not fail to recognize, the ruling states, that the required overall assessment also includes the conduct of Audi AG (after the vehicle was put on the market) up to the conclusion of the purchase contract. The court took the view that the measures taken by the parent company, i.e. Volkswagen AG, were not sufficient to remove the verdict of immorality for Audi, as numerous other vehicles in the entire group were affected.

Volkswagen’s software update is not enough to relieve the

The measures taken by the parent company also do not allow the necessary conclusion that Audi AG's decision to deceive the relevant authorities and ultimately vehicle buyers in the interest of its own profit was replaced by the strategy of going public, admitting irregularities and working with the Federal Motor Transport Authority to develop measures to remedy the illegal situation. The software update provided by the parent company cannot therefore exonerate Audi. Even the extensive media coverage that made the problem accessible to the general public can only be taken into account to a limited extent when assessing what efforts Audi AG should have made to make its behavior appear not to be immoral.

Media coverage initiated by the press department of Volkswagen AG

The media coverage was initiated almost exclusively by the press department of Volkswagen AG and was therefore primarily seen as „VW EMISSIONS SCANDAL„ been an important topic.

Other topics such as the creation of an information website, the KBA measure and the provision of the software update were primarily associated with Volkswagen AG and not with Audi AG. If these measures can be associated with a change in behavior at all, it is in any case not possible to conclude that the defendant has changed behavior.

This is all the more true as it is known to the court that Audi AG used illegal defeat devices in numerous other vehicles it produced and developed, which contained engines it developed and produced, from the time the vehicle in question was placed on the market until the conclusion of the purchase contract. Against this background, it does not seem possible to assume a change of attitude that would eliminate the immorality.

"This decision rightly does not follow the BGH and therefore does not give Audi AG the opportunity to evade responsibility. The flimsy and untruthful ad hoc announcement from Wolfsburg has not become a clean bill of health for the entire group. A development that we very much welcome in the interests of consumer protection. I am sure that many other courts will follow the reasoning in this judgment."

Partner Dr. Marco Rogert