Mercedes Abgasskandal - Verbraucherschutz Blog - R&U

Mercedes-Abgasskandal: Daimler AG muss unserem Mandanten Schadensersatz zahlen

Marco Rogert — Mon, 03 May 2021 10:48:35 +0000

With a judgment of April 20, 2021, our law firm achieved another success in the Mercedes emissions scandal before the Düsseldorf Regional Court.

The district court awarded our client – the driver of a Mercedes-Benz C 200 d – a claim for damages and ordered Daimler AG to take back the vehicle and repay the purchase price, taking into account compensation for use.

Unauthorized temperature-dependent shutdown device in vehicles with the engine “OM 626"

In this specific case, the vehicle in question was a Mercedes C-Class with Euro 6 emissions standards and an OM 626 diesel engine. The court followed our reasoning and was unequivocal in its ruling.

Daimler AG, which has sole internal knowledge of the group, did not explain during the proceedings that the development and implementation of the (illegal) vehicle control software in the form of a so-called “thermal window" was carried out without the approval of its board of management. However, even if Daimler AG could do so, the uncontrolled behavior of individual employees would constitute a so-called organizational deficiency, for which the company would have to accept equal responsibility, and thus a claim for damages would also exist.

Nevertheless, the court comes to the conclusion that, based on normal living conditions and experience, there is a very high probability that these events took place with the knowledge and approval of the group's management board.

Another milestone in proceedings against Daimler AG

We see this ruling as a further milestone for consumer protection and the investigation of the diesel scandal. As long as the automakers continue to stonewall and refuse to acknowledge the specific knowledge of the respective management board, the courts will have to rule this way.

So calculate now your claim and get free advice!

Mercedes-Abgasskandal: Landgericht Stuttgart gibt Klage statt

Marco Rogert — Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:29:57 +0000

11,000+ EUR compensation for the E-Class driver.

The Stuttgart Regional Court sentenced Daimler-Benz AG to pay 11,327.90 euros in return for the return of the plaintiff's vehicle, a Mercedes Benz E-Class 220 CDI with the Euro 5 emissions class and the OM 651 engine.
The plaintiff had bought the car second-hand in 2013 for 35,500 euros and had driven it a distance of almost 155,000 km. When calculating the compensation for use, the court assumed a total mileage of 250,000 km.

The Mercedes Benz The Court rejected the argument that the vehicle complied with the emission limits for nitrogen oxides in the tests provided for by law.
According to the relevant case law, the limit values specified in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 must also be complied with in real driving conditions, the judgment states.

The consequences for Mercedes owners: loss of value and threatened vehicle immobilization.

Daimler-Benz AG has placed vehicles on the market and in this context obtained an EC type approval without fulfilling the necessary requirement that nitrogen oxide emissions in real driving conditions do not exceed the limit values according to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No. 71512007. This puts the continued existence of the EC type approval at risk. If the Federal Motor Transport Authority revokes the registration and the operating license expires, every owner faces the risk of having their vehicle taken off the road. Every vehicle is also at risk of a massive loss in value.

The resulting damage was caused by negligence on the part of Daimler-Benz AG employees. It does not meet the due diligence requirements within the approval process for a vehicle type that a car manufacturer assumes that passing the test bench tests is sufficient. The regulation and its legal framework provide no evidence that this assumption is correct.

Abgasskandal bei Daimler – Kaum noch ein Mercedes ohne Rückruf!

Marco Rogert — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:25:37 +0000

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.

Neue Beweisbeschlüsse in Verfahren gegen Mercedes Benz

Marco Rogert — Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:28:39 +0000

Illegal shutdown devices in the OM 651 engine.

The Stuttgart-based carmaker has to prepare for headwinds in two lawsuits involving the reversal of purchase contracts.

For example, the regional courts of Mainz and Duisburg issued orders for evidence in proceedings (LG Mainz of 16.09.2020, Az. 5 O 398/19; LG Duisburg of 17.09.2020, Az. 12 O 70/19) which are intended to determine whether the models GLK 220 CDI 4Matic Euro 6 and GLC 220 d 4Matic Euro 5, both with the engine OM 651 equipped with an illegal switch-off device. Both models are subject to a mandatory recall by the Federal Motor Transport Authority. In the court proceedings, Mercedes claims that the installed - illegal - switch-off devices were not solely for the purpose of identifying the test bench and initiating measures to keep emissions particularly low. This meant that the car manufacturer was often able to evade liability.

Is the OM 651 engine legal after all? The courts see it differently!

Currently, the emissions scandal surrounding Mercedes Two diesel engines were recalled: the OM651 and the OM642, where OM stands for oil engine. The four-cylinder OM 651 engine (1.8 liters to 2.1 liters displacement) was installed in the A, B, CLA, S, V and GLA classes as well as in the SLK Roadster, Vito and Sprinter. The OM651 can also be found in some Mercedes hybrid models.

The LG Mainz would like to take evidence on the question,

whether the "installed software, which is responsible for the exhaust gas control system, recognizes whether the vehicle is on the test bench in order to then control the exhaust gas purification to such an extent that it passes the NEDC exhaust gas tests. In normal driving, however, parts of the exhaust gas control system are deactivated, which is why the NOx emissions are then considerably higher and the vehicle emits many times more than the legal limits of the Euro 6 standard allow."

In addition, the expert must determine whether the on-board diagnostic system (OBD) has been manipulated so that it falsely reports during the inspection that the exhaust systems are functioning properly.

The Regional Court in Duisburg goes even further and wants to have an expert opinion clarify whether

whether the dosage of the urea solution (“AdBlue”) to be supplied to the SCR catalyst is reduced outside the test cycle, i.e. during normal road use, to below the quantities necessary to comply with the prescribed limit values;

and

whether the exhaust gas purification system in the plaintiff's vehicle is only 100% active within a temperature window between 17° C and 30° C and whether it is reduced to such an extent outside this temperature window that the exhaust gases are emitted untreated?

Open questions about the affected Mercedes models

If the expert answers these questions in the affirmative, the following questions should also be answered:

Is there a technical basis for such a reduction or
Is there a comprehensible or even compelling reason for deactivation?

Is the reduction or deactivation essentially dictated by the emission measurement test procedures?

Is the reduction or deactivation necessary to protect the engine from damage or an accident and to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle?

Does the reduction or deactivation work longer than is necessary to start the engine?

We firmly believe that the reports will shed light on the matter and will keep you informed as to whether things are getting too tricky for the Stuttgart car manufacturer. It remains exciting to see whether the Mercedes diesel scandal involving the models with the OM 651 engine will also result in lucrative settlement offers for affected consumers.

Milliarden-Zahlungen im Diesel-Abgasskandal in den USA

Marco Rogert — Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:33:00 +0000

Daimler refuses to settle in Germany, but victims have a good chance of reversing the settlement.

In the USA, Daimler has emissions scandal billion-dollar settlements with authorities and consumers. What does this mean for Mercedes buyers in Germany who have been harmed? In this country, the company has so far denied any responsibility and is trying to prevent higher court rulings by any means possible. Is the turnaround now coming?

Over 2.2 billion US dollars, the equivalent of about 1.9 billion euros – that is how much Daimlerr in the USA Comparisons in the diesel emissions scandal 1.5 billion US dollars (1.26 billion euros) of this is accounted for by agreements with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Environmental Division of the Department of Justice, the Customs and Border Protection Agency and Californian authorities. 700 million US dollars (around 590 million euros) will go to consumers who joined a class action lawsuit. In addition, there is a three-digit million amount for court costs and attorney fees.

No offer for affected customers in Germany

In total, around 250,000 Mercedes vehicles in the United States are affected by illegal emissions manipulation. If all the courts and institutions involved agree to the settlement, the Stuttgart-based carmaker will get off relatively lightly – at least significantly cheaper than VolkswagenThe competition paid around 14.7 billion dollars (around 12,642.4 billion euros) for its settlement in the USA. Including all the fines and damages, the costs of the emissions fraud for the Wolfsburg-based company in the USA alone amounted to 23 billion euros. Daimler has not yet reached the end of the story either, as criminal proceedings against the company are still being heard by a US jury, and the settlements are by no means the end of the matter.

Almost two billion euros in settlement payments – that sounds like an admission of guilt in diesel emissions scandalBut whoever hopes that Daimler also approaches affected customers in Germany and makes them a similarly generous offer is mistaken. Because although hardly anyone doubts that the emissions control system in numerous Mercedes diesels was also manipulated, the company claims innocence here.

Recalls for 1.5 million Mercedes vehicles – Now also S-Class affected

The fact that Daimler cheated is demonstrated not least by the nine compulsory recalls that the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) has now ordered due to illegal switch-off devices. More than 1.5 million Mercedes vehicles are affected, over 610,000 of them in Germany. Fraudulent software can be found in almost all of the group's car models. A thermal window has even been detected in the group's "flagships". In any case, the KBA has ordered a recall of a total of more than 6,000 vehicles of the S 350 BlueTEC, S 350 d, S 350 TEC 4MATIC and S 350 d 4MATIC models. Around 1,260 Mercedes are affected in Germany.

The 6-cylinder common rail diesel engine OM 642 is used in these and other premium models. Illegal manipulation software is also active in the Mercedes engines OM 622, OM 626 and OM 651. Installing software updates obviously does not solve the problem with increased nitrogen emissions. On the contrary: According to a report by the ZDF magazine “Frontal 21According to the report, some vehicles emit even more NOx after the update.

Whether it is the thermal window, coolant setpoint control or Bit 15: the Stuttgart-based company insists that such manipulations are legal because they serve to protect the engine and are therefore not permitted by the Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Article 5, paragraph 2 Daimler Board Member and Chief Legal Officer Renata Jungo Brüngger recently stressed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

More and more consumer-friendly judgments in Mercedes cases

It is more than questionable whether Daimler will get away with this. The Attorney General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has taken a clear position on this issue: defeat devices are fundamentally prohibited if they lead to increased emissions in road traffic. Exceptions to this are only permitted within very narrow limits. A corresponding decision from the highest European court is widely expected.

Thousands of cases are pending against Daimler in courts in Germany. The Swabians are leaving no stone unturned to avoid judgments. Information about the engines and how the defeat devices work is kept under wraps, as are recall notices from the KBA. In court, the company's lawyers prefer to submit redacted documents and refer to trade secrets. Nevertheless, more and more courts are ruling in favor of consumers in Mercedes cases, for example the regional courts. Heilbronn, Bonn and most recently the Stuttgart Regional Court in three cases.

Stuttgart Higher Regional Court increases pressure on Daimler

The company has so far been able to avert consumer-friendly decisions by higher regional courts (OLG) by offering individual settlements to the plaintiffs. But now the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court is putting pressure on the company. The court has combined several proceedings against Daimler and set up a special senate for these cases, which has already clearly sided with the aggrieved Mercedes buyers.

As the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) (28.01.2020, Az. VIII ZR 57/19), the Stuttgart Senate also stated in a decision It is clear that the company must provide information on how the defeat devices work as part of its secondary burden of proof. In particular, it must disclose information on the approval procedures and explain why it considers the manipulation to be legal and necessary. If the company continues to submit redacted documents, the Senate intends to interpret this to Daimler's disadvantage. In addition, the court indicated in its preliminary legal opinion that it follows the Attorney General at the ECJ on the subject of "exceptions to the ban on defeat devices".

"For a long time it looked as if Daimler was successful with its cover-up tactics. But after the request from the ECJ Attorney General and the decisions of the Federal Court of Justice and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, the company can no longer get away with it. Daimler must now lay its cards on the table and take responsibility for its emissions tricks. The settlement from the USA will further accelerate the consumer-friendly trend in case law. We advise all Daimler buyers who have suffered damage to now consult a competent lawyer and assert their claims for damages. The chance of getting justice has never been greater than it is now."

Partner Dr. Marco Rogert

Fast die gesamte Fahrzeugpalette vom Abgasskandal betroffen

Marco Rogert — Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:22:05 +0000

Another recall for over 120,000 Mercedes diesels.

The list of Mercedes recalls due to illegal switch-off devices is long - and is getting longer. The latest official recall by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) affects more than 120,000 vehicles worldwide - across the entire vehicle range. With the OM 640, a previously unsuspected engine has also come into focus.

So far, the Daimler Group has stubbornly refused to admit the use of illegal manipulation software and to provide information in court proceedings. shutdown devices in its diesel vehicles. But the evidence against the Stuttgart-based carmaker is becoming more and more numerous. The latest recalls by the KBA are contributing to this. With a decision dated July 16, 2020, the authority recalled Euro 5 diesels from the Mercedes classes A, B, C, E and S from the years 2008 to 2011 to the workshops. In Germany alone, more than 30,000 vehicles are affected; worldwide, the figure is over 113,000. On July 20, a recall was also issued for the Mercedes C-Class model C300 Hybrid (series 205). This affects 7,325 vehicles worldwide, 896 of them in Germany.

Affected engines: A new suspect – and an old acquaintance

For the first time, the focus is now on the diesel engine OM 640, which was previously considered to be unsuspected and was installed in A and B class vehicles until 2012. The second engine affected, called OM 651, is already a familiar face in the emissions scandal. In 2018, during a large-scale recall Of the 280,000 Mercedes vehicles with the Euro 6b emissions standard, this engine was one of those affected. The 40,000 Mercedes GLK 220 models with the Euro 5 emissions standard, which the KBA sent to the workshops for a software update in June 2019, are also equipped with the OM 651.

OM 651 – Daimler's scandal engine

Once celebrated as a miracle machine, the OM 651, introduced in 2008, is now also a scandal engine of the EA189 from Volkswagen. It has earned this reputation with up to four illegal shutdown devices, most notably the so-called coolant target temperature control. This ensures that the coolant circuit is cooled down significantly. This delays the heating of the engine oil and reduces nitrogen oxide emissions - but only on the test bench and not in real driving conditions on the road. This software manipulation has now also been discovered in vehicles with OM 640 diesel engines.

For Daimler the coolant setpoint temperature control is just as legal as the also effective in the OM 651 thermal window. Both defeat devices serve, as the car manufacturer never tires of claiming, to protect the engine and should therefore be legal. The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on the other hand, considers defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emissions control systems under normal conditions of use to be inadmissible and only allows exceptions in very limited exceptional cases. In any case, they do not apply to thermal windows.

What affected Mercedes owners need to know now

Mercedes owners affected by the current recall are now being asked in writing to bring their vehicles to the workshop and have a software update installed. However, it is unclear whether their diesel will actually run cleanly on the road after the update - as well as possible negative consequences, such as reduced engine performance, increased consumption of fuel and AdBlue, and sudden defects in wearing parts on the exhaust gas recirculation system.

"As the owner of an affected Mercedes diesel, you must expect a loss in the value of your vehicle due to the illegal switch-off devices. You should not accept that. Use your chance to enforce your claims for damages now. After the renewed recall, your chances are better than ever. Daimler can no longer deny the illegal software manipulation and many courts are now ruling in favor of the injured car buyers. It is best to get legal advice as soon as possible."

Partner Dr. Marco Rogert

Gerichtsbeschlüsse zur Auskunftspflicht im Diesel-Abgasskandal

Marco Rogert — Tue, 07 Jul 2020 08:45:00 +0000

Manufacturers and authorities must release sensitive files.

In the diesel emissions scandal Those responsible are practicing secrecy: documents on software manipulation are considered trade secrets, responsibilities remain vague, official measurement and test results are kept under wraps - and not just by the car manufacturers, but also by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) and the Federal Ministry of Justice. But the courts have long given the public's interest in clearing up the scandal more importance than the manufacturers' trade secrets. Car companies and state institutions are increasingly being ordered to hand over documents. Is the whole truth finally coming to light?

When it comes to complaints from injured diesel buyers in the emissions scandal In order to brush off the accusations, car manufacturers like to accuse the plaintiffs of arguing “out of the blue”. However, if you ask the manufacturers how exactly their switch-off devices work and why they are necessary, the companies react very tightly, citing trade secrets, claiming to know nothing or – as for example Daimler before the Heilbronn Regional Court or in proceedings before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart – predominantly blacked out pages.

Secondary burden of proof: Car manufacturers must provide facts

Judges have long criticized the insufficiently substantiated statements of the car companies and point to the secondary burden of presentation and proof the manufacturer. This means that in proceedings in the emissions scandal, the diesel buyers who are suing cannot explain details of the engine control and software manipulation in detail because they do not have access to the relevant information. In this case, the secondary burden of explanation and proof falls on the defendant, i.e. the car manufacturers. They have detailed information on defeat devices and are obliged to answer open questions and substantively dispute the plaintiffs' statements by presenting facts that prove the opposite. Concrete facts, in other words, instead of nebulous claims: this is what the Federal Court of Justice recently demanded in its ruling in the proceedings against VW.

Car companies, KBA and Ministry of Transport: a wall of silence

The disclosure of technical details and the release of documents on shutdown devices, decision-making processes and responsibilities are opposed not only by Volkswagen, Daimler & Co. The KBA and the Federal Ministry of Transport are also trying to keep sensitive documents and test results under wraps. It is thanks to persistent journalists, environmentalists and courageous lawyers that they can no longer get away with this secrecy. This is shown by numerous court rulings from recent months, for example from Schleswig, Berlin and Leipzig.

Public has a right to information in the emissions scandal

The ZDF political magazine Frontal 21 has been reporting continuously on the diesel emissions scandal since 2015. In the course of the research, the editorial team asked VW and the KBA to inspect documents on software updates for the EA 189 scandal engine. The content of the approximately 4,000 pages is explosive. They may contain evidence that illegal switch-off devices are still effective in the 2.0-liter diesel engines of the VW Amarok, Audi A4, Audi A5, Audi Q5 and Seat Exeo, even after software updates.

VW and KBA refused to provide access to the files on the grounds that the documents contained trade and business secrets and would jeopardise “fair proceedings” in parallel proceedings. The Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court had already ordered the KBA to release the documents in April 2019. sentenced (April 22, 2019, ref. 6 A 222/16). Almost exactly one year later, the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court rejected the KBA's appeal (April 27, 2020, ref. 4 LA 251/19). The first instance judgment is now final. The KBA must grant Frontal 21-Reaktion access to the files.

The reasoning of the Higher Administrative Court leaves nothing to be desired in terms of clarity: Given that 2.5 million car buyers were affected by the emissions scandal, the public interest in the publication of the documents is to be valued higher than VW's interest in the confidentiality of operational and business secrets.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe: Access to files after the third instance

Without a court order, neither car manufacturers nor state institutions comply with their duty to provide information as set out in Section 3 Paragraph 1 and Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Environmental Information Act (UIG). This is demonstrated by the “Frontal 21 case” as well as a Proceedings of the German Environmental Aid (DUH) against the Federal Ministry of Transport, which also shows how close the relationship is between VW and the ministry.

Since 2015, the environmental organisation has been requesting access to the files of the “Volkswagen Investigation Commission”, which was set up by former Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt. The ministry refused, the DUH sued for access to the files and won the case before the Berlin Administrative Court (30.11.2017, Az. VG 2 K 288.16) as well as the appeal before the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court (29.03.2019, Az. OVG 12 B 13.18 u. 14.18). The appeal against the Higher Administrative Court’s ruling has been rejected by the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig not admitted (April 22, 2020; Ref. BVerwG 10 B 18.19). The judgment is now legally binding - and after more than 4 years of legal disputes, the Federal Ministry must finally release the files to the DUH.

In this case too, all courts valued the public's interest in clarifying the emissions scandal more highly than VW's operational and business secrets. In another case, the DUH is demanding access to a document from Volkswagen AG in which the company admitted to the Federal Ministry of Transport in November 2015 that it had false CO2 values for 800,000 cars and explained in more detail how this had come about. The decision is still pending here.

In another case, Deutsche Umwelthilfe obtained a ruling from the Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court in 2018 that forces the KBA to release documents relating to the recall of VW diesel vehicles (April 20, 2018, case number 6 A 48/16).

"It is a scandal within a scandal how even state institutions such as the KBA and the Ministry of Transport refuse to fulfill their duty to provide information and cover up the deceptive maneuvers of the car manufacturers. We therefore welcome the rulings of the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court and the Federal Administrative Court all the more. This is the only way the facts will finally come to light. The decisions from Leipzig and Schleswig will have wider ramifications. Daimler will also no longer be able to get out of the affair with blacked-out documents."

Partner Dr. Marco Rogert

Mercedes Abgasskandal - Verbraucherschutz Blog - R&U

Mercedes-Abgasskandal: Daimler AG muss unserem Mandanten Schadensersatz zahlen

Unauthorized temperature-dependent shutdown device in vehicles with the engine “OM 626"

Another milestone in proceedings against Daimler AG

You might also be interested in:

Mercedes-Abgasskandal: Landgericht Stuttgart gibt Klage statt

11,000+ EUR compensation for the E-Class driver.

The consequences for Mercedes owners: loss of value and threatened vehicle immobilization.

You might also be interested in:

Abgasskandal bei Daimler – Kaum noch ein Mercedes ohne Rückruf!

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

Recall after recall - Daimler emissions scandal continues

How voluntary is a voluntary Mercedes customer service measure?

Voluntary customer service measure – not so voluntary after all?

Daimler software update poses risk of consequential damage

You might also be interested in:

Neue Beweisbeschlüsse in Verfahren gegen Mercedes Benz

Illegal shutdown devices in the OM 651 engine.

Is the OM 651 engine legal after all? The courts see it differently!

Open questions about the affected Mercedes models

You might also be interested in:

Milliarden-Zahlungen im Diesel-Abgasskandal in den USA

Daimler refuses to settle in Germany, but victims have a good chance of reversing the settlement.

No offer for affected customers in Germany

Recalls for 1.5 million Mercedes vehicles – Now also S-Class affected

More and more consumer-friendly judgments in Mercedes cases

Stuttgart Higher Regional Court increases pressure on Daimler

You might also be interested in:

Fast die gesamte Fahrzeugpalette vom Abgasskandal betroffen

Another recall for over 120,000 Mercedes diesels.

Affected engines: A new suspect – and an old acquaintance

OM 651 – Daimler's scandal engine

What affected Mercedes owners need to know now

You might also be interested in:

Gerichtsbeschlüsse zur Auskunftspflicht im Diesel-Abgasskandal

Manufacturers and authorities must release sensitive files.

Secondary burden of proof: Car manufacturers must provide facts

Car companies, KBA and Ministry of Transport: a wall of silence

Public has a right to information in the emissions scandal

Deutsche Umwelthilfe: Access to files after the third instance

You might also be interested in: