In a noteworthy case, Canadian driver Ronen Kleiman has emerged victorious in his long-standing legal dispute with BMW regarding the misleading range claims of the 2014 i3 electric vehicle. However, the outcome is bittersweet, as Kleiman now faces a significant financial burden despite winning the case.
The Lawsuit: Misleading Range Claims
Kleiman’s legal journey began in 2017, when he sued BMW, claiming that the company misrepresented the driving range of the i3. At the time of his purchase, the BMW Canada website advertised that the i3 could travel up to 200 km (124 miles) in Eco Pro and Eco Pro+ modes. However, after a month of ownership, Kleiman discovered that his vehicle fell short of these claims.
During a particular trip of 159 km (99 miles) with his wife, the i3 managed only 158 km (98 miles) under ideal conditions—sunny weather and an empty car. This discrepancy prompted Kleiman to dig deeper into BMW’s marketing materials. He found that between November 28 and December 10, 2014, the advertised range figures were quietly updated to reflect a much lower range: 130 km (81 miles) in Comfort mode, 160 km (99 miles) in Eco Pro, and 156 km (97 miles) in Eco Pro+.
Despite presenting archived evidence of these changes, BMW maintained that the i3 was never marketed with the higher range figure.
Settlement Offer and Court Decision
After years of litigation, Deputy Judge James Minns of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in Kleiman’s favor, awarding him $5,000 in damages. However, in a frustrating twist, the court also ordered Kleiman to pay BMW $11,140 in legal fees after he rejected a pretrial settlement offer of $10,000. Kleiman declined the settlement because it included a nondisclosure clause, as he wanted to bring attention to the issue.
BMW responded in a court filing, denying any wrongdoing. The company argued that “all ranges for battery-electric vehicles are impacted by personal driving behavior, the vehicle’s exterior environment, and consumption of on-board features while driving.”
Reflection on the Outcome
Kleiman had sought $25,000 in damages, primarily to cover his out-of-pocket expenses. Although he appreciated the court’s acknowledgment of BMW’s misrepresentation, he felt that the damages awarded did not sufficiently hold the company accountable for its actions. “Although I am satisfied that the judge found BMW misrepresented the vehicle, his damages award contradicts the reasons for this finding and fails to hold BMW accountable for their actions,” he stated.
In the end, while Kleiman technically won his case, the financial repercussions raise an important question: was the legal battle worth it?
For more on electric vehicle reliability and consumer rights, check out our articles on EV Range Misconceptions and How to Navigate Legal Claims Against Auto Manufacturers.
