In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S FINAL STATUS REPORT

- 1 -

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

27

28

JONATHAN COHEN, D.C. Bar 483454; jcohen2@ftc.gov

MICHELLE L. SCHAEFER, D.C. Bar 478773; mschaefer@ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528

Washington, D.C.

(202) 326-2551 (Cohen); -3515 (Schaefer); -3197 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Relates to: FTC v. Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1534 (N.D. Cal).

MDL DOCKET NO. 2672

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

FINAL STATUS REPORT ON 

CONSUMER COMPENSATION

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

In 2016 and 2017, the Court entered several settlements resolving the serious consumer 

and environmental issues Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” affair raised. As the Court undoubtedly 

recalls, Volkswagen (through its VW and Audi brands) and Porsche (collectively, “Defendants”)

unlawfully marketed more than 550,000 vehicles as “clean” and environmentally-friendly. 

Through the settlements, DOJ, EPA, CARB, and their partners primarily addressed the 

environmental problems, whereas the FTC and the private bar primarily addressed consumer 

harm, including measures that fully compensated the victims of Volkswagen’s unprecedented 

deception. Although the FTC cannot comment regarding the environmental settlements, it can 

report about the consumer agreements that the Commission negotiated and oversaw. The 

compensation components of these settlements are now materially complete. 

Thanks to the efforts of the parties involved with the consumer settlements—the Court, 

the FTC, the private bar, the independent Claims Supervisor, and Defendants themselves—this is 

one of the most successful consumer redress programs in history. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7635 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 4
In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S FINAL STATUS REPORT

- 2 -

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

27

28

In total, Defendants repaid consumers more than $9.5 billion.

1

 The two FTC settlements 

(“FTC Orders”) required far more robust notice procedures than many private settlements 

provide, see DE2104 (Oct. 25, 2016) at 15-18, DE3227 (May 17, 2017) at 19-21, and consumers 

responded: Defendants made payments associated with more than 88% of their “Clean Diesel” 

vehicles.2 The FTC Orders also afforded most affected consumers a choice to (a) have 

Defendants take back their vehicle (buying it back at favorable pre-negotiated prices or 

terminating leases early with compensation), or (b) have Defendants modify their vehicle and 

provide compensation. See DE2104 at 21-25; DE3227 at 19-23. Consumers responded to this 

choice as well: of U.S. consumers eligible to choose a buyback or early lease termination who 

proceeded through the claims process, made a choice, and received their remedy, 86.2% chose a 

buyback or early lease termination. 

Notably, and also unlike some other settlements in complex consumer litigation, the FTC 

Orders imposed tight claims deadlines and other measures intended to enhance consumers’

experience despite the redress program’s size and complexity.

3

 To their substantial credit, 

Defendants successfully managed the settlement administration process despite the enormous 

claims volume. Among other things, Defendants moved most claims along quickly and assisted 

consumers through the process in good faith. By way of example—and contrary to consumer 

experience in other areas (and other settlements)—when consumers called Defendants, 

Defendants gave consumers remarkably accurate information for a redress plan this large and 

complex. In fact, Defendants provided accurate information 98% of the time, and most calls 

successfully addressed the consumer’s concerns.4

 

 

1 This figure does not include more than $300 million Bosch also paid to consumers. 

2 The FTC derived most of the information provided herein from data assembled and 

analyzed by the independent Claims Supervisor. 

3 The private class action consumer settlements contained provisions that largely tracked 

the FTC Orders or supplemented their provisions. 

4 The Claims Supervisor monitored a statistically significant sample of Defendants’ calls 

with consumers. Though still imperfect, Defendants’ success rate far exceeds what one might 

reasonably expect in many customer service contexts. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7635 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7635 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 4

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 

27 

28 

Furthermore, the settlements included an independent "Claims Supervisor" (a monitor) 

tasked with supervising Defendants' compliance. The Claims Supervisor's presence, and 

effective performance, undoubtedly helped facilitate the extremely positive result. Additionally, 

the FTC Orders included specific provisions for military consumers, including those overseas. 

Of eligible military consumers who pursued claims, Defendants paid every one. 

Most important, the FTC Orders and related private class settlements provided redress 

sufficient to compensate consumers fully. The FTC Orders required payments to consumers that 

included compensation for their vehicles' full retail value and all other losses Defendants' 

deception caused: for instance, time spent shopping for new vehicles, sales taxes and registration 

fees, the value of the lost opportunity to drive an environmentally-friendly vehicle, and the 

additional amount consumers paid for a vehicle feature ( clean emissions) that Defendants falsely 

advertised. See DEl 781 (Aug. 26, 2016); DE3184 (Apr. 27, 2017) at 2. Accordingly, the 

settlement compensation restored consumers to the position they would hav.e enjoyed without 

unlawful claims. The settlements in this case were enormous, and sufficient to provide 

consumers with complete relief, but that was only half the battle. Those funds had to be returned 

to consumers in an equitable, efficient, and consumer-friendly manner. Here, the detailed 

administrative process the FTC Orders set forth, combined with the efforts of the Court, FTC, 

private bar, Claims Supervisor, and Defendants themselves, led to an extremely successful 

process. 

Dated: ~* HAN COHEN 

Bar No. 483454; jcohen2@ftc.gov 

MICHELLE L. SCHAEFER 

DC Bar No. 478773; mschaefer@ftc.gov 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

202-326-2551 (Cohen); -3515 (Schaefer); 

-3197 (facsimile) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION' S FINAL STATUS REPORT 

- 3 -
Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7635 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 4

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 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on July 27, 2020, I caused true copies of the foregoing to be served by 

electronic means by filing this document through the Court's Electronic Case Filing system. 

Additionally, I emailed courtesy copies to: 

Bethany Engel (Bethany.Engel@enrd.usdoj.gov) 

Anna E. Grace (AGrace@enrd.usdoj.gov) 

Elizabeth Cabraser (ECabraser@lchb.com) 

David Stellings (DStellings@lchb.com) 

Diane McGimsey (McGimseyD@sullcrom.com) 

Jonathan Blevins (BlevinsJ@sullcrom.com) 

Norm Armstrong (NArmstrong@kslaw.com) 

Amina Dammann (ADammann@kslaw.com) 

Jon an Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov) 

omey for Plaintiff 

ederal Trade Commission 

In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S FINAL STATUS REPORT 

-4-