1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

JONATHAN COHEN, DC Bar No. 483454 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

MICHELLE L. SCHAEFER, DC Bar No. 478773 

mschaefer@ftc.gov 

AMANDA B. KOSTNER, CA Bar No. 245345 

akostner@ftc.gov 

SANGJOON “SIMON” HAN, DC Bar No. 998971 

shan@ftc.gov 

MEGAN A. BARTLEY, VA Bar No. 81840 

mbartley@ftc.gov 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2551 (Cohen); -3515 (Schaefer); -2880 (Kostner); -2495 (Han); -3424 (Bartley) 

(202) 326-3197 (fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., 

a corporation, also d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF 

AMERICA, INC., also d/b/a AUDI OF 

AMERICA, INC. 

 Defendant. 

Case No. ____________ 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission, restitution, 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 2 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for 

Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in 

connection with Defendant’s false advertising that its “Clean Diesel” vehicles had low 

emissions, complied with state and federal emissions standards, were environmentally friendly, 

and retained a high resale value. 

JURISDICTION 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2) and (c)(2), and 

15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

4. Intradistrict assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 3-2(c) because acts or omissions giving rise to the FTC’s claims occurred, among 

other places, in San Francisco County, California. 

PLAINTIFF 

5. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 

which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

6. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be 

appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A). 

DEFENDANT 

7. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen USA”) is a New 

Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 3 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

Herndon, VA 20171. Volkswagen USA transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

8. Volkswagen USA also transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States as Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc., 

fictitious business names registered in Ohio. 

9. Volkswagen USA is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, with headquarters in 

Wolfsburg, Germany. 

10. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Volkswagen USA has advertised, marketed, offered for sale, sold, offered for lease, leased, and 

distributed motor vehicles to consumers throughout the United States, including various makes 

and models of diesel vehicles marketed as “Clean Diesel” (collectively, “Defeat Device 

Vehicles,” or “DDVs”). Each of these vehicles contains a defeat device, illegal software 

designed to enable the vehicle to cheat emissions tests. The defeat device operates when 

emissions testing occurs and calibrates the emission control system to reduce NOx emissions to 

legally-compliant levels for the duration of the test. After testing, the software resumes its 

default mode: calibrating the emission control system to allow NOx emissions at as much as 

4,000 percent above the legal limit, which enables more powerful and durable engine 

performance. Without sophisticated testing equipment, there is no way to know whether a 

vehicle contains such a defeat device. 

COMMERCE 

11. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant has maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

12. Defendant Volkswagen USA sells Volkswagen and Audi vehicles through 

approximately 1,000 dealers and independent distributors throughout the United States. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 4 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

13. From late 2008 to late 2015, Defendant Volkswagen USA advertised, marketed, 

offered for sale, sold, offered for lease, leased, and distributed more than 550,000 Defeat Device 

Vehicles to consumers throughout the United States. 

14. Volkswagen USA represented that DDVs had low emissions, complied with 

government emissions standards, were environmentally friendly, and retained a high resale 

value. During this time, Volkswagen USA became the largest seller of light-duty diesel vehicles 

in the United States. The DDVs had Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Prices (“MSRPs”) ranging 

from approximately $22,000 for the least expensive Volkswagen-branded 2.0L DDV to 

approximately $125,000 for the most-expensive Audi-branded 3.0L DDV. Collectively, 

consumers spent billions purchasing or leasing Defendant’s DDVs. 

Volkswagen USA Sold Defeat Device Vehicles. 

15. Nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) are a group of dangerous atmospheric pollutants that 

contribute to a host of harms to the environment and human health, including smog, acid rain, 

water quality deterioration, childhood asthma, other respiratory ailments, and premature death. 

16. To reduce these risks to the American public, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (“EPA”) promulgated NOx emissions limits. In 2007, the EPA fully implemented these 

limits for light-duty vehicles, which include passenger cars and SUVs. 

17. To ensure that auto manufacturers comply with its emissions standards, EPA 

administers an emissions certification program, which requires auto manufacturers to apply for a 

Certificate of Conformity (“COC”) for each model and model year. It is illegal to sell a vehicle 

without a valid COC. 

18. To obtain a COC, a manufacturer must submit an application to EPA’s Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”), which includes, among other things, the 

manufacturer’s emissions and durability test results. OTAQ reviews the test results, and in some 

cases, it performs “confirmatory testing” to validate the manufacturer’s results. When a 

manufacturer submits a COC application for a vehicle with a new engine design, OTAQ always 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 5 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

performs confirmatory testing. OTAQ’s confirmatory testing involves operating the vehicle in a 

laboratory setting; it does not involve “on-road” testing. Volkswagen knew how and when 

OTAQ would perform confirmatory testing. 

19. In June 2008, Volkswagen submitted a COC application to OTAQ for its first 

diesel car in the U.S. market, the 2009 Turbocharged Direct Injection (“TDI”) Jetta. When 

OTAQ performed confirmatory testing on the TDI Jetta, it passed solely because it contained 

illegal software designed to defeat EPA’s testing procedures (i.e., a “defeat device”). 

20. Volkswagen began distributing its first Defeat Device Vehicle, the “Clean Diesel” 

TDI Jetta, in late 2008. According to Volkswagen USA, its introduction of its new “Clean 

Diesel” technology in the U.S. market was “proof of [Volkswagen] Group’s commitment to 

provide customers an alternative in their purchase of fuel efficient, clean emissions vehicles that 

are also fun to drive.” 

21. Over the next seven years, Volkswagen USA sold, leased, or distributed more 

than 550,000 Defeat Device Vehicles, which have contributed—and will continue to 

contribute—to environmental and human health harms including smog, acid rain, water quality 

deterioration, childhood asthma, adult respiratory ailments, and premature death. 

Volkswagen USA Promoted Its Defeat Device Vehicles As “Clean Diesel.” 

22. To induce American consumers to purchase its Defeat Device Vehicles, 

Volkswagen USA spent tens of millions of dollars on widely-disseminated advertising to convey 

“diesel’s environmental and economic advantages.” 

23. Volkswagen USA targeted much of its “Clean Diesel” advertising at 

“progressive” and “environmentally-conscious” consumers. Volkswagen USA’s marketers 

studied their targets’ psychology, concluding that such consumers “rationalize themselves out of 

their aspirations and justify buying lesser cars under the guise of being responsible.” According 

to Volkswagen USA, such consumers understood purchasing an eco-conscious vehicle as part of 

being “responsible.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 6 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

24. Volkswagen USA’s “Clean Diesel” advertising included, among other things, 

nationally-televised advertisements (including a Super Bowl ad), online social media campaigns 

(including videos, websites and games on Facebook and elsewhere), press releases and public 

statements, print advertising (including the slogan, “Diesel – It’s No Longer A Dirty Word”), 

posters, brochures and other materials distributed to dealers and independent distributors around 

the country, collaboration with environmental nonprofits (including The Nature Conservancy), 

and strategic product placement (for instance, Volkswagen USA arranged for actress Gwyneth 

Paltrow to arrive at the Hollywood premiere of Iron Man III in an Audi “Clean Diesel”). 

25. According to Volkswagen USA’s marketing strategy materials, one of the “key 

messages” it intended to convey through the word “clean” was that Clean Diesel vehicles 

produce “NOx emissions [that are] reduced by 95 percent[.]” 

Volkswagen USA Claimed That Its Defeat Device Vehicles Had Low Emissions. 

26. Volkswagen USA’s advertisements, promotional materials, and public statements 

represented that its Defeat Device Vehicles had low emissions, reduced NOx by 90%, had lower 

NOx than comparable diesel vehicles, had lower emissions than comparable diesel vehicles, and 

had lower emissions than comparable gasoline vehicles. For example: 

A. A 2008 television advertisement, “Do Your Part,” depicts people commuting in 

different environmentally friendly ways: “trying to do their part” by taking the 

bus, riding a Segway, biking, and driving a car with the bumper sticker “powered 

by vegetable oil.” Then an Audi A3 speeds by, and the announcer observes: 

“Some just have more fun doing it.” The screen reads: “42mpg. 30% fewer 

emissions.” The ad ends with the tagline: “Diesel. It’s no longer a dirty word.” 

B. A 2009 promotional mailer reads: “With the new Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, you get 

a great car that’s low on emissions . . . .” The mailer further claims that the car’s 

engine is “designed to reduce emissions,” which is why it is “[c]lean as a 

whistle.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 7 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

C. Press coverage of the 2008 “Audi Mileage Marathon,” quotes an Audi 

spokesperson saying: “Diesel is not dirty. This marathon is about getting the 

word out that clean-diesel technology such as ours can achieve 40-percent better 

fuel economy and reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions by 90%.” 

D. A press release for the 2014 Volkswagen Touareg states that the “deNOx catalytic 

converter . . . helps reduce NOx emissions by up to 90 per cent.” 

E. According to 2010 press materials, the Volkswagen Jetta’s clean diesel 

technology “reduces nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by up to 90% by making 

internal engine modifications and implementing a NOx storage catalytic 

converter.” 

F. A 2009 press release identifies the Audi Q7 as the “world’s cleanest diesel SUV,” 

states that it has an “advanced exhaust emission control system” that “reduces 

smog-causing nitrogen oxides by up to 90% when compared with past generations 

of diesel technologies sold in the U.S.,” and is “significantly less intrusive on the 

environment than past diesel engines.” 

G. 2013 emails to consumers promoting Audi TDIs state that “Clean Diesel” offers 

“fewer NOx emissions than comparable gasoline engines.” 

H. An Audi print ad with the tagline “Diesel. It’s no longer a dirty word,” describes 

the TDI engine as having “20% fewer emissions than gasoline engines.” 

I. In the “coffee filter test” video featured on one of Volkswagen USA’s online 

media campaigns at TDITruthandDare.com, two testers compare a “Clean Diesel” 

Volkswagen Touareg with a “traditional diesel” by placing clean white coffee 

filters on the tailpipes “to see which one is cleaner after 10 minutes.” After the 

“test,” the Touareg filter is still clean white, but the “traditional diesel” filter had a 

black stain. The tester comments: “That [filter from the “traditional diesel”] is 

nasty-looking. This [filter from the Touraeg] looks pretty good, though.” The 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 8 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

tester then proposes making coffee with the filters, commenting: “Traditional 

diesel coffee, it’s got the extra kick. It’s got the carbon monoxide, the sulfur 

oxide . . . . Ready for some sooty emissions, diesel particulates . . . ?” 

J. In a 2015 online video titled “Diesel Old Wives’ Tale #6: Diesel is Dirty,” one of 

the “old wives” asks: “Aren’t diesels dirty?” The TDI driver (another “old wife”) 

responds: “That used to be dirty; this is 2015.” She then “proves it” by holding a 

white scarf to the exhaust of a Volkswagen Golf SportWagen TDI car and then 

brandishing the clean cloth (“See how clean it is?”). The final tagline reads: 

“Volkswagen TDI Clean Diesel: Like really clean diesel.” This ad reached at 

least 9 million consumers. 

Volkswagen USA Claimed Its Defeat Device Vehicles Complied 

With Emissions Standards. 

27. Volkswagen USA’s advertisements, promotional materials, and public statements 

represented that its Defeat Device Vehicles complied with state and federal emissions standards. 

For example: 

A. “Clean Diesel” vehicles “meet the strictest EPA standards in the U.S.” 

B. “Audi TDI clean diesel technology meets emission standards in all 50 states.” 

C. Volkswagen USA presents the “50-state compliant clean diesel Volkswagen Jetta 

TDI sedan and SportWagen TDI.” 

D. The “Touareg V6 TDI meet[s] the most stringent emission requirements of the 

world [with] its advanced DeNOx system.” 

E. “To achieve its 50-state-legal emissions qualification, a deNOx catalytic 

converter, augmented by a special injection system that sprays [diesel exhaust 

fluid (“DEF”)] into the exhaust, helps reduce NOx emissions by up to 90 per cent. 

This lets the engine meet the Tier 2, Bin 5/ULEV II standards imposed across all 

50 U.S. states.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 9 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

F. “Certified for use in all 50 states.” 

Volkswagen USA Claimed that Its Defeat Device Vehicles 

Were Environmentally Friendly. 

28. Volkswagen USA’s advertisements, promotional materials, and public statements 

represented that its Defeat Device Vehicles were environmentally friendly, including that they 

were “environmentally-conscious,” “eco-conscious,” or “green.” For example: 

A. In a television advertisement broadcast during the 2010 Super Bowl, the “Green 

Police” arrest consumers who use plastic bags or bottles, throw away batteries, 

fail to compost orange rinds, install incandescent light bulbs, soak in overheated 

Jacuzzi water, and drink from Styrofoam cups. When an Audi driver encounters 

an “Eco Check” roadblock, a Green Police officer asks the driver: “You got a TDI 

here?” The TDI driver responds: “Clean Diesel.” An officer replies: “You’re 

good to go, sir.” The Audi driver speeds away and the screen goes black, 

displaying the tagline: “Green has never felt so right.” The final tagline reads: 

“Green Car of the Year. Audi A3 TDI clean diesel.” 

B. A press release states that the 2011 Audi Q7 “provides premium SUV buyers with 

a new level of environmental conscientiousness with its efficient 3.0 TDI clean 

diesel engine.”

C. A page titled “Our environment” in a 2014 Volkswagen Jetta brochure pictures a 

pristine river winding through lush green forest and states: “Building cars comes 

with responsibilities—not just to you, but to the environment.” Under the caption 

“Our commitment to the environment,” the brochure lists items such as 

“[e]ncouraging eco-conscious behavior.” 

D. A press release for the launch of the 2009 Touareg TDI “Clean Diesel” states that 

the Touareg TDI “reinforces Volkswagen’s commitment to clean diesel 

technology as the most sensible alternative fuel vehicle available today.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 10 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

E. A 2013 brochure calls a TDI “Clean Diesel” vehicle “[g]ood, clean fun,” 

compares it to a hybrid, and explains its “Think Blue” logo as: “The sky’s the 

limit. The color blue symbolizes our commitment to building environmentally 

conscious cars . . . [a]nd setting a good example for eco-conscious behavior, 

everywhere, and every day.” It concludes: “Think Blue is the Volkswagen way 

to drive progress by creating and producing cars that are more efficient, ecoconscious, and fun to drive.” 

F. A mailer to Volkswagen customers promotes the 2009 Jetta TDI with the heading, 

“Hybrids? They’re so last year . . . .” It further states: “Now going green doesn’t 

have to feel like you’re going green.” 

G. Stickers on new “Clean Diesel” cars that disclose price, fuel economy, and other 

features contain a Volkswagen USA motto: “The People Want Good Clean 

Diesel Fun.” According to Volkswagen USA’s internal marketing materials, this 

motto is “meant to convey that VW has the people, processes, [and] products to 

provide sustainable solutions.” 

Volkswagen USA Claimed Its Defeat Device Vehicles Would Retain a High Resale Value. 

29. Through its advertising, public statements, and selling and leasing of cars, 

Volkswagen USA also represented to consumers that its Defeat Device Vehicles were durable, 

well-engineered vehicles that would retain a high resale value. For example: 

A. Volkswagen USA promoted DDVs as a good investment that likely retains a high 

resale value. For example, in response to a hypothetical customer’s desire for “a 

return on my investment,” a 2015 Audi brochure states: “TDI® clean diesel 

models typically have a higher resale value versus comparable gasoline vehicles.” 

Press releases and vehicle launches in 2009 cite “better resale value projections” 

for the Audi Q7 and “phenomenal resale value” for the Volkswagen Touareg. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 11 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

B. In marketing the benefits of DDVs, Volkswagen USA often used its tagline: 

“That’s the power of German engineering,” and referred to its “unparalleled” and 

“superior” engineering. 

C. Volkswagen USA frequently described DDVs as “long-lasting.” As one brochure 

states: “Whether you’re . . . driving mile after mile in any of our long-lasting TDI 

models, Volkswagen is all about performance. In fact, we’re known for it . . . no 

matter what model you choose, every Volkswagen is designed to perform. Year 

after year after year.” 

D. In training dealers and distributors to sell and lease DDVs, Volkswagen USA 

encouraged dealers to highlight the durability and high resale value of TDIs. 

Training materials and fact sheets for dealers stress that TDIs have a higher resale 

versus gasoline vehicles (noting a $3,800 resale difference at 48,000 miles and a 

$3,000 difference at 60,000 miles) and that “[t]he durability of the 3.0-liter TDI 

engine [ ] minimizes engine wear and tear over the life of the vehicle[,] which can 

result in substantially higher resale than comparable competitive models with 

gasoline engines.” 

Volkswagen USA Continued to Deceptively Market Defeat Device Vehicles Despite 

Evidence that the Vehicles Exceeded Legal Emissions Standards. 

30. The International Council on Clean Transportation (“ICCT”) hired West Virginia 

University (“WVU”) to conduct complex on-road testing (as opposed to government-mandated 

laboratory testing) on several diesel light-duty vehicles. In 2013, WVU began conducting onroad testing in collaboration with the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”). 

31. WVU performed this testing on a “Clean Diesel” Volkswagen Passat and a 

“Clean Diesel” Volkswagen Jetta. The “Clean Diesels” exceeded EPA’s NOx limits by as much 

as 4,000 percent. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 12 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

32. ICCT presented the results at a March 2014 conference attended by Volkswagen 

engineers. By mid-2014, CARB, EPA, and Volkswagen USA were communicating regularly 

regarding possible causes of the excess emissions. By October 2014, Volkswagen had 

independently confirmed WVU’s excess emissions findings, but provided regulators with 

scientifically invalid explanations for why its vehicles emitted so much NOx. 

33. Volkswagen USA’s interaction with CARB and EPA eventually led Volkswagen 

USA to issue software repairs in late 2014, and a recall of 2.0L “Clean Diesel” vehicles in April 

2015 to repair the emissions aftertreatment system. One Volkswagen engineer discussing 

proposed fixes noted that Volkswagen’s 3.0L “Clean Diesel” vehicles have “exactly the same 

issues, but not public yet.” He observed: “They have not been caught.” 

34. In coordination with EPA, CARB conducted both laboratory and on-road testing 

on the 2.0L “Clean Diesel” vehicles after the fixes and recalls and discovered that they failed to 

reduce the “Clean Diesel” vehicles’ illegal NOx emissions. The discrepancy between the Defeat 

Device Vehicles’ laboratory performance and their real-world performance remained. 

35. Volkswagen USA attempted to explain the discrepancy in various ways that 

CARB and EPA found increasingly implausible. Nonetheless, during this period, Volkswagen 

USA continued to market “Clean Diesel” vehicles as producing low emissions, complying with 

emissions standards, being environmentally friendly, and having a high resale value. 

36. In August 2015, EPA and CARB informed Volkswagen USA that it would not 

receive COCs for 2016 model year 2.0L “Clean Diesel” vehicles until the issue was resolved. 

37. At this point, Volkswagen USA admitted that its 2.0L diesel vehicles contained 

defeat devices. On September 18, 2015, EPA issued Volkswagen USA a Notice of Violation 

(“NOV”) covering approximately 480,000 2.0L Defeat Device Vehicles. 

38. However, Volkswagen USA continued selling 3.0L “Clean Diesel” vehicles with 

TDI engines that also contained defeat devices. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 13 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

39. On November 2, 2015, EPA issued a second NOV covering 3.0L “Clean Diesel” 

vehicles. EPA’s second NOV explains that the 3.0L vehicles also contain defeat devices that 

operate when testing occurs, and reduce NOx emissions to compliant levels only during the test. 

Volkswagen USA admitted that these vehicles contain undisclosed software similar to the defeat 

devices in the 2.0L vehicles. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

40. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

41. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

42. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or are 

likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid 

themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

15 U.S.C. § 45(n). 

Count I: Deceptive Representations 

43. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, offering for 

sale, sale, offering for lease, lease, and distribution of Defeat Device Vehicles, Defendant 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication: 

A. That Defeat Device Vehicles have low emissions, including that they 

reduce NOx by 90%, have lower NOx than comparable diesel vehicles, have lower emissions 

than comparable diesel vehicles, and have lower emissions than comparable gasoline vehicles; 

B. That Defeat Device Vehicles meet basic emissions standards, including 

that DDVs satisfied federal and state standards for emissions compliance; 

C. That Defeat Device Vehicles are environmentally friendly, including that 

they were “environmentally-conscious,” “eco-conscious,” or “green”; and 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 13 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 14 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

D. That Defeat Device Vehicles would not suffer a significant reduction in 

their resale value compared with similar vehicles, including that their resale value would be 

“higher . . . versus comparable gasoline vehicles.” 

44. In truth and in fact: 

A. Defeat Device Vehicles do not have low emissions, do not reduce NOx by 

90%, do not have lower NOx than comparable diesel vehicles, do not have lower emissions than 

comparable diesel vehicles, and do not have lower emissions than comparable gasoline vehicles; 

B. Defeat Device Vehicles do not meet basic emissions standards, including 

federal and state standards for emissions compliance; 

C. Defeat Device Vehicles are not environmentally friendly, not 

“environmentally-conscious,” not “eco-conscious,” and not “green”; and 

D. Defeat Device Vehicles will suffer a significant reduction in their resale 

value compared with similar vehicles because they contain defeat devices. 

45. Therefore, Defendant’s representations as set forth in Paragraph 43 of this 

Complaint are false and misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice, in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count II: Deceptive Failure to Disclose 

46. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, offering for 

sale, sale, offering for lease, lease, and distribution of Defeat Device Vehicles, Defendant 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that DDVs were durable, wellengineered vehicles. 

47. In numerous instances in which Defendant has made the representations set forth 

in Paragraph 46 of this Complaint, Defendant failed to disclose that DDVs contain defeat devices 

that adversely affect the resale value of the DDVs. 

48. The additional information described in Paragraph 47 of this Complaint would be 

material to consumers in deciding whether, or at what price, to purchase DDVs. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 14 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 15 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

49. Defendant’s failure to disclose the material information described in Paragraph 

47, in light of the representations in Paragraph 46, constitutes a deceptive act or practice in 

violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a). 

Count III: Means and Instrumentalities 

50. Defendant Volkswagen USA has distributed advertisements and promotional 

materials, including but not limited to videos, webpages, brochures, posters, stickers, and point 

of sale materials containing the representations described in Paragraph 43 to dealers and 

independent distributors that sold, leased, and distributed Defeat Device Vehicles. In doing so, 

Defendant provided dealers and distributors with the means and instrumentalities for the 

commission of deceptive acts or practices. 

51. Defendant’s practices as set forth in Paragraph 50 of this Complaint constitute a 

deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count IV: Unfairness 

52. As described in Paragraphs 19-21 of this Complaint, Defendant Volkswagen 

USA’s Defeat Device Vehicles contained defeat devices. Defendant then advertised, marketed, 

offered for sale, sold, offered for lease, leased, and distributed these vehicles to consumers, as 

described in Paragraphs 22-39 of this Complaint. 

53. Defendant’s actions caused or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, 

including that consumers unknowingly purchased or leased vehicles that, when driven on roads, 

exceed legal emission standards, emit high levels of NOx and, as a result, have a substantially 

reduced value. Because of Defendant’s actions, consumers purchased or leased substantially 

different vehicles than the ones they thought they purchased and did not receive the benefit of 

their bargain. Collectively, these consumers suffered billions of dollars in injury. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 15 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Complaint 16 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

54. Consumers could not have reasonably avoided this substantial injury because they 

could not reasonably have known the Defeat Device Vehicles contained a defeat device before 

they purchased or leased the vehicle. 

55. The substantial injury suffered by consumers is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition. Because defeat devices are illegal, they produce no legally 

cognizable benefit to consumers. Additionally, any alleged benefit the defeat devices delivered 

to consumers is vastly outweighed by the billions in injury consumers suffered. Furthermore, the 

use of a defeat device disadvantaged auto manufacturers that did not employ illegal software. 

56. Therefore, Defendant’s practices as described in Paragraph 52 of this Complaint 

constitute unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) 

and 45(n). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

57. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendant Volkswagen USA’s violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendant has been 

unjustly enriched as a result of its unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this 

Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the 

public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

58. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 

injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations 

of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable 

jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and 

remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 16 of 17
Case 3:16-cv-01534 Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 17

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

2 Wherefore, PlaintiffFTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

3 § 53(b), and the Court's own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

4 A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 

5 Defendant; 

6 B. A ward such additional relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

7 consumers resulting from Defendant's violations of the FTC Act, including but not limited to, 

8 rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

9 disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; 

10 c. Award Plaintiff the costs ofbringing this action, as well as such other and 

11 additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

12 Respectfully submitted, 

13 

14 I 

15 Dated '3 k q /jtR 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

--+--..::........:._~=--

Complaint 

FTC v. Volkswagen USA 

DAVID C. SHONKA 

Acting General Counsel 

/J~ rCHELLE L. SCHAEFER EN ( AMANDA B. KOSTNER 

SANGJOON "SIMON" HAN 

MEGAN A. BARTLEY 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

17