EXHIBIT A

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 38
STATE OF MAINE 

KENNEBEC, ss. 

STATE OF MAINE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) 

) 

VOLKSWAGEN AG, ) 

AUDIAG, ) 

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ) 

AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, ) 

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA ) 

CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC, ) 

DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, ) 

and ) 

PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

SUPERIOR COURT 

CIVIL ACTION 

DOCKET NO. 

COMPLAINT 

1. The State of Maine ("State") seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for 

violations of Maine's environmental laws caused by the above-named defendants ( collectively 

"Defendants") related to their installation of emission control "defeat devices" in Volkswagen, 

Audi, and Porsche models equipped with 2.0 liter and 3.0 liter diesel engines (the "Subject 

Vehicles") from the 2009-2016 model years. These "defeat devices" detected and then switched 

on ( or ramped up) emission control equipment when the diesel vehicles were undergoing 

emission tests, and then turned off ( or dialed down) the pollution control when the vehicles were 

driven on the road. More than 573,000 of the Subject Vehicles with "defeat devices" were sold 

or leased in the U.S. between 2008 and 2015 and about 3,500 in Maine. 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 38
2. Maine has adopted California's strict emission standards for new vehicles, 

including for emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx''), as part of Maine's efforts to address groundlevel ozone pollution. Ozone is formed when NOx emitted by motor vehicles and other sources 

combines in the atmosphere with volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in a complicated 

reaction in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone causes or contributes to many human 

respiratory problems, including chest pains, shortness of breath, coughing, nausea, throat 

irritation and increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, such as asthma, and 

disproportionately affects vulnerable members of society, particularly children and the elderly. 

The use of "defeat devices" made the Subject Vehicles emit substantially higher levels ofNOx, 

up to 40 times the legal limit, when the vehicles were driven on the road compared to during 

testing conditions, in violation of Maine law. Defendants' violations strike at the heart of 

Maine's and other states' environmental laws designed to protect public health by strictly 

limiting motor vehicle pollution. 

3. On June 28, 2016, Defendants announced that they had reached a partial 

settlement (which was approved by the federal court on October 25, 2016), that would resolve: 

(a) claims brought by car owners and the Federal Trade Commission for consumer deception in 

connection with its marketing and sale of the 2.0 liter Subject Vehicles, and (b) claims for 

injunctive relief brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), California, and 

the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") to redress environmental harm. On or around the 

same date, many states, including Maine, announced that they had settled their claims against 

Defendants for penalties arising under state laws that prohibit consumer deception. None of 

these settlements addressed the civil penalty claims of state governments, including Maine, for 

Defendants' violations of state environmental laws. Defendants' liability for claims arising 

2 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 38
under environmental laws and regulations, which is the subject of the present Complaint, was 

expressly left open by Maine and other states in their partial settlements with Defendants. 

4. The State of Maine, by and through its Attorney General, brings this action 

pursuant to Maine's Protection and Improvement of Air Law, 38 M.R.S. §§ 581-610-D ("Maine 

Air Law") and Maine's New Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards, 06-096 CMR ch. 127 ("Maine 

LEV Rule"). Together with appropriate injunctive and equitable relief and reasonable costs and 

attorneys' fees, the State seeks imposition against Defendants of civil penalties for violations of 

Maine's environmental laws in amounts sufficient to deter them, as well as other automakers, 

from engaging in and repeating this form of deliberate misconduct. 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff State of Maine is a sovereign state and brings this action by and through 

its Attorney General pursuant to the powers vested in her by the common law and by 5 M.R.S. 

§ 191 as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Maine, as well as under 38 M.R.S. 

§ 348. 

6. Defendant Volkswagen AG is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany 

and has its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany. At all times relevant to this 

complaint, Volkswagen AG designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold motor vehicles 

including the Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche brands. Volkswagen AG is the parent company of 

the Volkswagen Group ("VW Group"), an organizational and trade term referring to 

Volkswagen AG's automotive brands and financial services business. Volkswagen AG is the 

ultimate parent of the other Defendants named in this Complaint. 

7. Volkswagen AG and the VW Group are managed by Volkswagen AG's Board of 

Management. Each brand in the VW Group also has its own Brand Board of Management. The 

3 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 38
members of the Brand Boards of Management manage their respective brands, pursuant to 

targets and requirements laid down by the Volkswagen AG Board of Management. 

8. Defendant Audi AG is a member of the VW Group. Audi AG is a corporation 

organized under the laws of Germany, and has its principal place of business in Ingolstadt, 

Germany. Volkswagen AG, which owns 99.55% of Audi AG's stock, controls Audi AG. At all 

times relevant to this complaint, Audi AG designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold 

automobiles under the Audi brand name, including Subject Vehicles delivered for sale or lease in 

Maine. Audi AG also sold and supplied its 3.0-liter engine to Porsche AG for use in the U.S. 

market including Maine. 

9. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") is a New Jersey 

corporation that registered to do business in Maine on September 7, 2000 under the name of 

Volkswagen of America, Inc. and later amended its registration on December 28, 2007 to reflect 

a name change to Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. In 2008, VWGoA registered in Maine to 

do business under the assumed names of Audi of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, 

Inc. VWGoA does business in all fifty states and the District of Columbia and maintains a 

principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia. 

VWGoA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Acting in concert with other 

Defendants, VWGoA manufactured Subject Vehicles, which included installing defeat devices, 

and marketed and delivered Subject Vehicles for sale or lease in Maine. Within VWGoA, the 

Engineering and Environmental Office ("EEO") interacts with U.S. regulators and handles 

regulatory compliance and certification-related issues for Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. 

10. Defendant Audi of America, LLC ("AoA"), also known as Audi of America, Inc. 

or Audi of America, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business 

4 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 38
located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia. AoA is a wholly owned subsidiary 

and operating unit of VWGoA. AoA marketed and delivered for sale or lease Subject Vehicles 

in the United States, including Maine. VWGoA is responsible for the acts of AoA. AoA is 

closely controlled and directed by Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. 

11. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC ("VW 

Chattanooga") is a Tennessee limited liability company with its principal place of business 

located at 8001 Volkswagen Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee. VW Chattanooga operates a 

manufacturing plant and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWGoA. VW Chattanooga 

manufactured some of the Subject Vehicles, specifically the Volkswagen Passat turbocharged 

direct injection ("TDI") diesel vehicles, and delivered or arranged for delivery of these cars for 

sale or lease in the U.S., including Maine. 

12. Defendant Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG d/b/a Porsche AG ("Porsche AG") is a 

member of the VW Group. Porsche AG is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, 

has its principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Volkswagen AG. Porsche AG purchased and installed unlawful 3.0 liter TDI engines in Subject 

Vehicles, which it then delivered for sale or lease throughout the U.S., including Maine. 

13. Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche NA") is a Delaware 

corporation that registered to do business in Maine on January 27, 1999. Porsche NA has its 

principal place of business at One Porsche Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Porsche NA carries out 

much of the business of Porsche in the United States. Porsche NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary 

of Porsche AG and is closely controlled and directed by Porsche AG. Porsche NA marketed and 

delivered for sale or lease Subject Vehicles throughout the U.S. and submitted documentation to 

regulators to obtain certifications of compliance with emission requirements for those vehicles. 

5 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 38
14. Each of the Defendants is a "person" and/or a "manufacturer" as those terms are 

used in the Maine LEV Rule. "Manufacturer" is defined in the Maine LEV Rule, 06-096 CMR 

Chapter 127, § 2(X), and "person" is defined in the Maine Air Law, 38 M.R.S. § 582(9). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 

4 M.R.S. § 105 and 38 M.R.S. § 348, has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to 

14 M.R.S. § 704-A, and has authority to grant the reliefrequested pursuant to 38 M.R.S. §§ 348 

and 349. 

16. At all relevant times, all of the Defendants have purposefully availed themselves 

of this forum through the conduct described in this complaint. Further, Defendants Volkswagen 

AG, Audi AG, and Porsche AG: 

a. designed the Subject Vehicles, with their defeat device software, for sale within 

the U.S., including within Maine; 

b. directed VWGoA's Michigan-based Engineering and Environmental Office 

("EEO") and Porsche NA to submit to U.S. and state regulators applications for 

certification to sell the Subject Vehicles in the U.S., including within Maine; 

c. directed VWGoA's EEO and Porsche NA to make periodic submissions and 

certifications regarding the Subject Vehicles' compliance with applicable 

emissions standards and requirements to U.S. regulators, including the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection ("Department"), as required by the 

Maine LEV Rule; 

6 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 7 of 38
d. oversaw and/or directed VWGoA's, AoA's, and Porsche NA's development and 

placement of false and misleading marketing and advertising of the Subject 

Vehicles (including as "Clean Diesel") to U.S. consumers, including in Maine; 

e. directed VWGoA, AoA, and Porsche NA to expressly warrant to Maine buyers 

and lessees the Subject Vehicles' compliance with applicable emissions 

standards; 

f. directed VWGoA to issue to Maine buyers and lessees false and/or misleading 

recall notices in or around January and March 2015; and 

g. controlled and directed VWGoA's, AoA's, and Porsche NA's interactions with 

and message to U.S. regulators and the public, including consumers in Maine, in 

the aftermath of the 2014 independent study that led to the exposure of 

Volkswagen's fraud to the public. 

17. In addition, all Defendants transacted business in Maine between 2008 and 2016 

through at least seven car dealerships in Maine. 

18. Accordingly, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over all Defendants is consistent 

with due process. 

19. Venue is proper in Kennebec County pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 501 because the 

Plaintiff has its principal place of business in that county. 

FACTS 

A. The Defendants Acted in Concert to Violate Environmental Laws. 

20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants worked in concert with the 

common objective of engaging in the emissions cheating scheme described in this Complaint. 

Each of the Defendants was, and still is, the agent of the others for this purpose, and each has 

7 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 8 of 38
acted, and is acting, for the common goals and profit of them all. Therefore, all acts and 

knowledge ascribed to one of them are properly imputed to the others. Among other things: 

a. Volkswagen AG allocated and controlled the overall research and development 

and marketing budgets for the brands in the VW Group; 

b. For the Subject Vehicles that the Defendants sold in the United States, VWGoA's 

EEO acted as their representative before U.S. regulators for compliance and 

certification-related issues; 

c. The three brands (Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche) shared engineering research 

and development and engine concepts and designs, including, in this case, VW 

AG's incorporation of Audi-designed software and hardware elements into its EA 

189 diesel engine for the Generation 1 and 2 Subject Vehicles, and Porsche AG's 

use of the Audi 3.0 liter diesel engine for its Cayenne SUV Subject Vehicle; 

d. Officers and employees of the Defendants, including several of those involved in 

the unlawful conduct described in this Complaint, were shared among the 

Defendants, and have moved from the employ of one Defendant to another; and 

e. Senior management at Volkswagen AG, VWGoA, and Audi AG discussed, 

planned, and coordinated the response to the diesel scandal as it unfolded for 

Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche models in the United States. 

21. At all relevant times, each Defendant acted: (a) as a principal; (b) under express 

or implied agency; and/or ( c) with actual or ostensible authority to perform the acts alleged in 

this Complaint on behalf of every other named Defendant. 

8 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 9 of 38
22. Each Defendant knew, or should have known, that the other Defendants were 

engaging in or planned to engage in violations of law alleged in this Complaint. Despite 

knowing that the other Defendants were engaging in such unlawful conduct ( or despite the fact 

that they should have known that the other Defendants were engaging in unlawful conduct), each 

Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts. Each Defendant 

intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the commission of the unlawful acts, and 

thereby aided and abetted the other Defendants in the unlawful conduct. 

23. At a minimum, each of the Defendants provided each of the other Defendants 

with substantial assistance, or aided and abetted one another, in carrying out individual 

company-by-company unlawful emissions schemes, as described in this Complaint. 

24. Each Defendant engaged in multiple violations of Maine's environmental laws. 

The conduct of each of the Defendants was knowing and willful. 

B. The Defendants Developed and Placed Defeat Devices in Volkswagen, Audi, 

and Porsche Models Equipped With 2.0 and 3.0 Liter Diesel Engines, Model 

Years 2009 through 2016, Sold in the U.S., Including in Maine. 

25. Volkswagen AG and other Defendants designed and developed and ultimately 

marketed and sold a line of diesel turbocharged direct injection ("TDI") 2.0 and 3.0 liter light 

duty diesel vehicles (the Subject Vehicles) throughout the U.S., including in Maine. 

26. The Subject Vehicles include several makes and models sold or leased in the 

United States for the 2009 through 2016 model years. For the 2.0 liter vehicles, there were three 

"generations" of TDI 2.0 liter vehicles that differed in engine design and/or emissions control 

system. The makes and models for each of the 2.0 and 3.0 liter Subject Vehicles are summarized 

in the table below: 

9 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 10 of 38
2.0 Liter Diesel Models 

Model Generation Environmental Vehicle Make and Model(s) 

Year (Gen)/Engine Protection Agency 

(MY) ("EPA") Test 

Group 

2009 Gen 1 /EA189 9VWXV02.035N VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen 

9VWXV02.0U5N 

2010 Gen 1 /EA189 A VWXV02.0U5N VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3 

2011 Gen 1 /EA189 BVWXV02.0U5N VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3 

2012 Gen 1 /EA189 CVWXV02.0U5N VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3 

2013 Gen 1 /EA189 DVWXV02.0U5N VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, 

VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3 

2014 Gen 1 /EA189 EVWXV02.0U5N VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, 

VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen 

2012 Gen 2 /EA189 CVWXV02.0U4S VWPassat 

2013 DVWXV02.0U4S 

2014 EVWXV02.0U4S 

2015 Gen 3 /EA288 FVGA V02.0V AL VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, 

VW Golf Sportwagen, VW Jetta, VW Passat, 

Audi A3 

3.0 Liter Diesel Models 

Model Year EPA Test Group(s) Vehicle Make and Model(s) 

(MY) 

2009 9ADXT03.03LD VW Touareg, Audi Q7 

2010 AADXT03.03LD VW Touareg, Audi Q7 

2011 BADXT03.02UG VWTouareg 

BADXT03.03UG Audi Q7 

2012 CADXT03.02UG VWTouareg 

CADXT03.03UG Audi Q7 

2013 DADXT03.02UG VWTouareg 

DADXT03.03UG Audi Q7 

DPRXT03.0CDD Porsche Cayenne Diesel 

2014 EADXT03.02UG VWTouareg 

EADXT03.03UG Audi Q7 

EPRXT03.0CDD Porsche Cayenne Diesel 

EADXJ03.04UG Audi A6 Quattro, A 7 Quattro, A8L, Q5 

10 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 11 of 38
2015 

2016 

FVGAT03.0NU2 VWTouareg 

FVGAT03.0NU3 Audi Q7 

FPRXT03.0CDD Porsche Cayenne Diesel 

FVGAJ03.0NU4 Audi A6 Quattro, A 7 Quattro, A8L, Q5 

GVGAT03.0NU2 VWTouareg 

GPRXT03.0CDD Porsche Cayenne Diesel 

GVGAJ03.0NU4 Audi A6 Quattro, A 7 Quattro, A8L, Q5 

27. For clarity, throughout this Complaint: 

a. the 2.0 liter Generation 1/EA-189s, the Generation 2/EA-189s, and the Generation 

3/EA-288s identified above will be referred to as "Generation ls," "Generation 

2s," and "Generation 3s," respectively, and will be referred to collectively as 

"2.0s"; 

b. the 3.0 liter models will be referred to collectively as "3.0s"; and 

c. the 2.0s and 3.0s collectively comprise the "Subject Vehicles." 

28. At all relevant times, Defendant VWGoA, including its AoA unit, were 

responsible for marketing and selling the Volkswagen and Audi brand Subject Vehicles, subject 

to coordination with and general oversight by Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. 

29. At all relevant times, Porsche NA was responsible for marketing and selling the 

model year 2013 to 2016 Cayennes, subject to coordination with and general oversight by 

Porsche AG. 

30. Defendants sold, leased, and warranted more than 573,000 Subject Vehicles in the 

United States between 2008 and 2015, of which more than 487,000 were 2.0s and more than 

86,000 were 3.0s. 

31. Approximately 3,500 Subject Vehicles, including 2.0s and 3.0s, were sold or 

leased in Maine between 2008 and 2015. As of October 1, 2015, 3,982 Subject Vehicles were 

registered through the Maine Department of Motor Vehicles. 

11 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 12 of 38
32. Defendants developed and placed defeat devices in the Subject Vehicles including 

in the Subject Vehicles delivered to Maine and sold or leased in Maine. 

C. Defendants' Defeat Device Development and Implementation Was Not an 

Isolated Event but an Iterative Process Across Different Emissions Control 

Systems and Different Vehicle Types. 

33. In trying to leverage its existing diesel engine technology for the U.S. market, 

Defendants faced an engineering challenge: diesel engines are high NOx emitters, making 

compliance with U.S. regulation ofNOx emissions particularly challenging. 

34. To sell each new model year of the Subject Vehicles in the U.S., Volkswagen AG 

and Audi AG (acting through VWGoA's EEO) and Porsche AG (acting through Porsche NA), 

applied for and obtained (typically in the year prior to the particular model year) Certificates of 

Conformity from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Executive Orders 

from the CARB. In those applications, Defendants were required to disclose, among other 

things, all Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices ("AECDs") in the vehicles, i.e., any engine 

function that senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM, or any other parameter for the 

purpose of activating, modulating, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emissions 

control system. For each such AECD, Defendants were required to provide a written, detailed 

justification; the parameters the AECD senses and controls; and a rationale for why the AECD 

was not a "defeat device." 

3 5. An AECD that operates to thwart applicable emissions standards by reducing the 

effectiveness of an automobile's emissions control in everyday driving conditions is known in 

the industry as a "cycle-beater," and in U.S. legal terms, as a "defeat device." Deployment of 

defeat devices is prohibited under Maine law. 06-096 CMR chapter 127, § 4(A)(l). 

12 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 13 of 38
36. Defendants certified the new Generation ls, the Generation 2s, and the 3.0s to 

California's Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) II emissions standards, which imposed a NOx 

emission limit of 0.05 grams per mile (g/mi) at a durability standard of 50,000 miles and 

0.07 g/mi at 120,000 miles. 

37. Defendants certified the new Generation 3s to California's LEV III emissions 

standards, which imposed a combined non-methane organic gas and NOx limit of 0.125 g/mi at a 

durability standard of 150,000 miles. 

38. Unwilling to design and manufacture the Subject Vehicles so that they would 

meet these standards in all conditions ( during laboratory testing and in real driving conditions, in 

the customer's hands), Defendants cheated. 

39. Defendants implemented a defeat device in the form oftest recognition software 

in the Subject Vehicles' engine control units ("ECUs") that recognized when the Subject 

Vehicles were undergoing laboratory testing, such as test cycles on a rolling dynamometer (also 

known as a "treadmill" or "roller" or "dyno") using time and temperature parameters, among 

others. When the defeat device software detected a test cycle, it altered the emissions controls to 

bring emissions into compliance with applicable standards. Outside of the test cycle, the defeat 

device software lowered the emissions controls, resulting in NOx emissions far in excess of 

permissible limits. 

40. For example, the defeat devices on the 2.0 liter cars worked by directing the 

engine to run in one of two modes: a "testing" mode during which the car's emissions systems 

were fully operational, and a "driving" mode during which the car's emissions systems were 

substantially deactivated. 

13 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 14 of 38
41. Every time one of these cars was started, it automatically entered into "testing" 

mode. During the first several minutes of operation, the software checked the car's acceleration 

and speed profile against the tightly defined acceleration and speed profiles of the governmentspecified emissions test cycles used to test a car's emissions. 

42. If the defeat device software determined that the car was running in a test cycle, it 

kept the engine in "testing" mode so that the car's emissions controls remained fully operational. 

If on the other hand the software determined the car was being driven in normal, random 

conditions as occur in real-world driving, the defeat device software switched the engine into 

"driving" mode, during which emissions controls were substantially deactivated, with the effect 

that NOx emissions increased by a factor of up to 40 times above legal limits. 

43. The diesel exhaust after-treatment technology Defendants designed and 

implemented in the Subject Vehicles changed over time and across engine generations, but 

certain key emissions control features remained constant: all the Subject Vehicles employed 

exhaust gas recirculation and were equipped with a diesel particulate, or soot, filter ("soot 

filter"). 

44. Exhaust gas recirculation was used primarily to reduce NOx emissions by 

redirecting exhaust back into the engine's intake system and mixing it with fresh air, thereby 

reducing the amount of oxygen in the engine, lowering the combustion temperature, and 

reducing the creation ofNOx, 

45. The soot filter was used to remove particulate emissions (that is, soot) from the 

engine's exhaust. The soot accumulates in the soot filter until it is periodically burned off and 

emitted as ash in what are known as "soot filter regenerations" to prevent the soot filter from 

becoming clogged or overloaded. 

14 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 15 of 38
46. The defeat devices installed by Defendants on the Subject Vehicles varied over 

time and engine type. 

Defeat Device-Volkswagen Generations ls 

47. In 2006, Volkswagen AG decided to use for its Generation 1 's engine a lean-NOx 

trap ("lean trap"), which operated by trapping NOx emissions in a catalytic converter and then 

periodically running the engine in a fuel-rich, oxygen-lean mode to activate the catalytic 

converter, so as to enable it to break down its trapped NOx into benign nitrogen and oxygen. 

48. To overcome resulting issues with the soot filter, in late 2006, with the knowledge 

and approval of their managers, Volkswagen AG's engineers in Wolfsburg adapted a defeat 

device that Audi AG had developed and used previously in the European market (termed the 

"acoustic function" defeat device). 

49. Like the Audi AG defeat device, the defeat devices implemented in the 

Generation 1 s featured software that could detect when the vehicles were undergoing a dyno test 

based on, among other parameters, temperature and time. During a dyno test, the defeat device 

software substantially increased the frequency of lean trap regenerations and increased exhaust 

gas recirculation to bring NOx emissions down to compliant levels. In contrast, during realworld driving, the defeat device software substantially reduced the frequency of lean trap 

regenerations and reduced exhaust gas recirculations resulting in NOx emissions up to 40 times 

the legal limit. 

50. Volkswagen AG incorporated the lean trap regeneration and exhaust gas 

recirculation defeat devices described above in the engine control units (ECUs) of the model year 

2009-2014 Jetta, Golf, A3, and new Beetle diesel models. Over 300,000 of these Generation 1 

vehicles (model years 2009-2014) were sold in the United States, including in Maine. 

15 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 16 of 38
Defeat Device-Audi 3.0 SUV s 

51. At the time Volkswagen AG's engineers in Wolfsburg were developing the 

Generation 1 diesel engine, their colleagues at Audi AG' s Neckarsulm headquarters were 

developing a U.S.-market 3.0 liter diesel engine for the anticipated release in model year 2009 of 

a new line of luxury diesel SUV s in the U.S. market: the Audi Q7 and Volkswagen Touareg, 

both equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems. 

52. In addition to the exhaust gas recirculation defeat device implemented in the 

Generation ls, the 3.0s also featured a urea dosing defeat device. The urea dosing defeat device 

operated to increase urea dosing during dyno testing and reduce the urea dosing to an artificial 

limit during real driving conditions to enable the too-small urea tanks to last for 10,000 miles 

between service intervals. 

53. Audi AG installed the urea dosing defeat device and the exhaust gas recirculation 

defeat device for production into the 3.0s for sale in the U.S. market from 2009-2016, resulting 

in NOx emissions of up to nine times the legal limit in everyday driving conditions. Not 

including the Porsche Cayenne diesel SUVs discussed below, approximately 74,500 of the 3.0s 

(model years 2009 to 2016) were sold in the United States, including in Maine. 

Defeat Device--Volkswagen Generation 2s 

54. In 2009, Volkswagen AG turned its attention to the planned roll-out in the U.S. of 

the model year 2012 Generation 2 Passat equipped with selective catalytic reduction. 

55. For these vehicles, Volkswagen AG opted to implement defeat devices that would 

control exhaust gas recirculation and urea dosing. In testing mode, the defeat device software 

increased exhaust gas recirculation and urea dosing to bring the NOx emissions within regulatory 

16 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 17 of 38
limits. Outside of test conditions, however, the defeat device software reduced the urea dosing 

rate by half to conserve urea and reduced exhaust gas recirculation. 

56. With the approval of Defendants' supervisory executives, company engineers 

went forward with the dosing and exhaust gas recirculation defeat devices, installing them in 

roughly 80,000 Volkswagen Passats in the U.S. market, including in Maine, spanning from 

model year 2012-2014. In real-world conditions, the Generation 2.0s sold in this country 

exceeded lawful NOx emissions levels by up to twenty times. 

Defeat Device-Porsche Cayenne 

57. In 2010, Volkswagen AG acquired Porsche AG, and the founding family of 

Porsche became Volkswagen's leading shareholders. The following year, Porsche decided to 

enter the U.S. diesel market with its new Cayenne SUV. 

58. Porsche AG approached its sister company Audi AG about acquiring Audi AG's 

3.0 liter V6 diesel engine for use in the Cayenne. Audi AG agreed to supply Porsche AG the 

U.S.-market 3.0, lightly re-tuned for Porsche AG. In supplying the engine, Audi AG personnel 

communicated to their counterparts at Porsche AG about the engine's primary features, including 

the urea dosing strategy that Audi AG had devised. 

59. Notwithstanding this information, Porsche AG's engineering department 

proceeded to source the Audi defeat-device equipped 3.0 liter engine for its entry into the U.S. 

diesel market with the MY 2013 Cayenne diesel SUV. 

60. Approximately 13,600 of the defeat device-equipped Porsche vehicles, model 

years 2013 to 2016, were sold or leased in the U.S., including in Maine. 

61. With the defeat device, Porsche Cayennes were estimated to emit NOx at roughly 

nine times the legal limit. 

17 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 18 of 38
Defeat Device-Volkswagen Generation 3s 

62. In or about 2013, Volkswagen AG and other Defendants discontinued the lean 

trap emissions system in favor of a selective catalytic reduction-based system for all its model 

year 2015 2.0s (the Beetle, Golf, Jetta, Passat, and Audi A3). 

63. In doing so, Defendants again opted to implement exhaust gas recirculation and 

urea-dosing defeat devices like those they implemented in the Generation 2s and the 3.0s. 

64. Defendants sold nearly 100,000 of the model year 2015 Generation 3s in the 

United States, including in Maine. These cars continued to be sold even after Defendants 

became aware that independent real-world studies made clear that the Subject Vehicles were 

emitting NOx in real driving conditions far in excess of legal limits. 

D. Defendants Manipulated the On-Board Diagnostics Systems to Conceal the 

Defeat Devices. 

65. Maine and other states have adopted Inspection and Maintenance ("I&M") 

programs that require motor vehicles to pass periodic inspection tests that evaluate, among other 

things, the vehicles' emissions systems. In Maine, as elsewhere, the inspection tests do not 

directly measure the vehicles' emissions, but rely instead on the vehicles' on-board diagnostics 

("OBD") to relay information on whether the vehicles' emissions system is functioning properly. 

State and federal law require auto manufacturers to equip their cars with OBD systems that 

electronically report failures of emissions systems to mechanics or inspectors during service or 

inspection. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Maine required inspection of the OBD 

system (as part of an enhanced inspection) for motor vehicles required to be registered in 

Cumberland County. Motor vehicles not required to be registered in Cumberland County may 

have such an inspection. 

18 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 19 of 38
66. During an inspection, properly functioning OBD systems would have reported the 

failure of Defendants' defeat-device equipped cars as exceeding emission limits and would have 

alerted inspectors, mechanics, and car owners that the cars' emissions systems were not 

functioning correctly and required repair. 

67. To allow its vehicles, equipped with defeat devices, to pass Maine's and other 

states' inspection and maintenance tests, Defendants therefore needed to and, in fact, did 

implement a further cheat: they programmed the OBD systems on the cars equipped with defeat 

devices to falsely report at inspection time that the automobiles' emissions systems, including 

exhaust gas recirculation, were working properly. 

68. This deception subverted Maine's I&M program and caused a substantial waste of 

time and resources. Despite subjecting the Subject Vehicles that were required to be registered 

in Cumberland County to numerous periodic O BD inspections, Maine's inspectors, mechanics, 

and car owners were misled into believing that Defendants' vehicles complied with applicable 

environmental laws when, in fact, they violated those laws. 

E. Defendants Implemented the Defeat Devices Knowing They Were Illegal. 

69. Emission Increasing-Auxiliary Emission Control Devices ("EI-AECDs") may be 

legal if they are designed to run only in limited, extreme driving circumstances to protect the 

engine, and only if ( a) the automaker discloses them to the regulators; and (b) the regulators 

determine the software is not actually designed primarily to cheat the emissions test. 

70. The Defendants knew that the undisclosed defeat devices they employed could 

not be passed off as EI-AECDs. 

71. Despite being fully aware of the prohibitions in this country against defeat 

devices, Defendants proceeded to roll out hundreds of thousands of diesel vehicles with 2.0 and 

19 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 20 of 38
3.0 liter engines onto the American market (including about 3,500 such vehicles in Maine) from 

the 2009 through 2016 model years, all of which featured undisclosed and illegal defeat devices. 

F. Defendants Continued to Deny the Existence of the Defeat Devices and 

Mislead Regulators Even After Initial Evidence of their Existence Caught the 

Attention of U.S. Regulators. 

72. While acknowledging the defeat devices relatively openly in internal 

communications, Defendants actively sought to conceal the defeat devices from regulators, 

researchers, and the public. Among other things, they: 

a. directed the removal of reference to the defeat device ( or the "acoustic function" 

as it was called internally) from ECU documentation; 

b. buried the results of 2012-2013 internal testing that reflected real world NOx 

emissions exceeding U.S. limits by many multiples; 

c. obfuscated in response to questions presented by Dutch researchers in March 

2012 concerning lowered exhaust gas recirculation in real driving conditions and 

corresponding increases in NOx emissions; 

d. denied independent researchers access to data that would confirm NOx 

discrepancies between testing and real driving conditions in Defendants' U.S. 

fleet; and 

e. failed to disclose the illegal, emissions-increasing defeat devices in their 

certifications to state and federal regulators, which falsely represented full 

compliance with applicable emissions and durability standards. 

73. On March 31, 2014, an Audi AG engineer alerted colleagues at Volkswagen AG 

and VWGoA EEO to the upcoming publication of a report by the West Virginia University's 

Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines & Emissions commissioned by the International Council 

20 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 21 of 38
on Clean Transportation ("ICCT Report"). The ICCT Report found that real world emissions 

from two of the three light-duty diesel vehicles it tested contained levels ofNOx between five 

and thirty-five times higher than the legal emissions limits. West Virginia University researchers 

conducted these tests using a portable emissions measurement system-essentially a lightweight 

laboratory used to test and/or assess mobile source emissions in real driving conditions-rather 

than on a dynamometer. 

74. The vehicles that failed were a 2012 Jetta with a lean trap (a Generation 1) and a 

2013 Passat with a selective catalytic reduction system (a Generation 2). 

75. In a May 23, 2014, letter to the CEO and Chairman of Volkswagen AG's Board 

of Managers, the Volkswagen AG Quality Assurance head warned: 

A thorough explanation for the dramatic increase in N Ox emissions 

cannot be given to the authorities. It can be assumed that the 

authorities will then investigate the VW systems to determine 

whether Volkswagen implemented a test detection system in the 

engine control unit software (so-called defeat device) and, in the 

event a "treadmill test" is detected, a regeneration or dosing 

strategy is implemented that differs from real driving conditions. 

In Drivetrain Development, modified software versions are 

currently being developed which can reduce the RDE, but this will 

not bring about compliance with the limits, either. We will inform 

you about the further development and discussion with the 

authorities. 

76. With the risks of detection in mind, Defendants embarked on a strategy to 

deescalate and deflect scrutiny. They publicly denied that the Subject Vehicles failed emissions 

requirements. They neutrally acknowledged the existence of the problem without explaining its 

known cause to authorities or involving Volkswagen AG Group Product Safety, to maintain the 

illusion that the problem was insignificant. 

77. From May 2014 until September 3, 2015 (and beyond for the 3.0 liter Subject 

Vehicles), Defendants attempted to mislead and confuse regulators and the public about the true 

21 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 22 of 38
cause of the high real-driving NOx emissions identified in the ICCT Report: Defendants' 

installation of illegal defeat devices. 

G. After Months of Obfuscation and Concealment Defendants Admitted Their 

Use of Defeat Devices. 

78. On or about August 5, 2015, the Volkswagen AG Engine Development head (and 

former VWGoA EEO head) and the VWGoA EEO head met with CARB management and 

admitted that, even after the software recalls, the Generation 1 and Generation 2s did not meet 

legal requirements. 

79. On September 3, 2015, at a meeting attended by multiple CARB officials, 

Volkswagen AG executives and managers, and the VWGoA EEO head, Volkswagen AG and 

VWGoA admitted the existence of an illegal defeat device in the Generation 2s and disclosed the 

existence of "test recognition software and engine map/dosing changes between road and chassis 

dyno." 

80. At that September 3, 2015, meeting, Volkswagen AG and VWGoA admitted the 

Generation 2 Engine Control Units had two calibrations: one for real world driving ("Calibration 

1 ") and one for testing ("Calibration 2"). They disclosed that, in Calibration 1, the urea dosing, 

exhaust gas recirculation, and rail pressure were lower. In Calibration 2, they disclosed that the 

urea dosing, exhaust gas recirculation, and rail pressure were higher. 

81. On September 18, 2015, EPA issued to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and VWGoA 

a Notice of Violation reflecting the agency's determination that: 

VW manufactured and installed defeat devices in certain model 

year 2009 through 2015 diesel light-duty vehicles equipped with 

2. 0 liter engines. These defeat devices bypass, defeat, or render 

inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission control system that 

exist to comply with [Clean Air Act] emission standards .... 

Additionally, the EPA has determined that, due to the existence of 

the defeat devices in these vehicles, these vehicles do not conform 

22 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 23 of 38
in all material respects to the vehicle specifications described in the 

applications for the certificates of conformity that purportedly 

cover them. 

82. The same day, CARB sent an "In-Use Compliance" letter to Volkswagen AG, 

Audi AG, and VWGoA describing its investigation of the reasons behind the high NOx 

emissions observed on their 2.0 liter diesel vehicles in real world driving conditions and its 

related discussions with VWGoA. According to CARB, those discussions "culminated in VW's 

admission in early September 2015 that it has, since model year 2009, employed a defeat device 

to circumvent CARB and the EPA emission test procedures." 

83. In a second "In-Use Compliance" letter dated November 2, 2015, CARB notified 

Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Porsche AG, Porsche NA, and VWGoA that it had conducted defeat 

device screening and certification testing on a model year 2016 Audi A6 and a model year 2014 

Volkswagen Touareg and observed "the same type of emissions behaviors as those in which VW 

has admitted defeat devices exist." CARB stated that "[t]hese activities corroborate testing 

conducted by U.S. EPA and Environment Canada on a 2014 VW Touareg ... and a 2015 

Porsche Cayenne ... , respectively. This testing has also yielded evidence of a defeat device." 

84. On November 2, 2015, EPA issued to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Porsche AG, 

VWGoA, and Porsche NA a second Notice of Violation for model years 2014 to 2016 diesel 

light-duty vehicles equipped with 3 .0 liter engines. 

85. On November 20, 2015, CARB issued a press release reporting that in a 

November 19, 2015 meeting with EPA and CARB, "VW and Audi officials ... told EPA and 

CARB that the issues raised in the In-Use Compliance letter extend to all 3.0 liter diesel engines 

from model years 2009 through 2016." 

23 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 24 of 38
86. Thereafter, in an "In-Use Compliance" letter to Audi AG, Porsche AG, Porsche 

NA, Volkswagen AG, and VWGoA, dated November 25, 2015, CARB confirmed its 

determination that all 3.0 liter model-years 2009-2016 diesel test groups of these manufacturers 

are in noncompliance with CARB standards. 

H. The Defendants Knew that the Subject Vehicles Emitted NOx Emissions In 

Amounts Far Higher Than Permitted. 

87. At all relevant times, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Porsche-and Volkswagen 

AG's U.S. subsidiary, VWGoA, have known that the defeat devices installed in the 2.0 and 3.0s 

they manufactured and sold in the United States, including in Maine, caused the Subject Vehicles 

to emit many times the allowed NOx during normal operation in violation of state laws and 

regulations promulgated to protect human health and the environment from mobile sources of air 

pollution. 

88. The excess NOx emitted by the Subject Vehicles combines in the atmosphere with 

volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in a complicated reaction in the presence of heat and 

sunlight to form ozone, a major component of urban smog that harms the public health and 

damages the environment. 

89. Ozone contributes to many human respiratory health problems, including chest 

pains, shortness of breath, coughing, nausea, throat irritation and increased susceptibility to 

respiratory infections and illnesses, such as asthma, and disproportionately affects vulnerable 

members of society, particularly children and the elderly. 

90. NOx emissions also cause eutrophication of and excess nutrient loading in coastal 

and other waters, reduce the diversity of fish and other life in these waters, and, along with sulfur 

dioxide found in the atmosphere from other sources, contribute to the creation of fine nitrate and 

sulfate particles. Like ozone, fine particulates affect Maine's residents by causing human 

24 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 25 of 38
respiratory distress, cardiovascular disease, and even premature mortality. Fine nitrate and 

sulfate particles are also toxic to aquatic life and vegetation. 

91. At all relevant times, Defendants have been aware of the requirements of the state 

environmental statutes and rules more particularly described elsewhere in this Complaint. For 

example, the Maine LEV Rule at 06-096 CMR chapter 127, § 8, requires car manufacturers to 

submit a report to Maine annually demonstrating that the manufacturer has met the fleet average 

Non-methane Organic Gas ("NMOG") or NMOG + NOx emission requirements in chapter 127, 

§ 7, and the Defendants have been filing such fleet average reports with Maine, including for the 

model years represented by the Subject Vehicles. As a result of the defeat devices in the Subject 

Vehicles, those fleet averages submitted by the Defendants were false. 

92. Likewise, in order to obtain certification to sell the Subject Vehicles in the United 

States, Defendants submitted to the EPA and CARB applications for each model year for 

Emissions Certifications falsely certifying the Subject Vehicles' compliance with applicable 

emissions and durability standards and the California regulations. These applications contained 

the following false statements: 

Statement of Compliance: 

The Volkswagen Group states that any element of design, system, 

or emission control device installed on or incorporated in the 

Volkswagen Group's new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines for the purpose of complying with standards prescribed 

under section 202 of the Clean Air Act, will not, to the best of the 

Volkswagen Group's information and belief, cause the emission 

into the ambient air of pollutants in the operation of its motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle engines which cause or contribute to an 

umeasonable risk to public health or welfare except as specifically 

permitted by the standards prescribed under section 202 of the 

Clean Air Act. The Volkswagen Group further states that any 

element of design, system, or emission control device installed or 

incorporated in the Volkswagen Group's new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines, for the purpose of complying with 

25 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 26 of 38
standards prescribed under section 202 of the Clean Air Act, will 

not, to the best of the Volkswagen Group's information and belief, 

cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public safety. 

Durability Statement: 

Based on the Volkswagen Group's good engineering judgment, all 

the vehicles described in this Application for Certification comply 

with all applicable intermediate and full useful life standards. 

93. Moreover, Defendants failed to disclose or describe the defeat devices on the list 

of AECDs required in the applications. To the extent Defendants disclosed the existence of them 

as AECDs, Defendants falsely represented they were "active" in all conditions (i.e., in test and 

real driving conditions). 

94. Defendants' certifications to state and federal environmental regulators 

concerning the Subject Vehicles' purported compliance with applicable law were false and 

misleading. As a result, Defendants sold or leased about 3,500 non-compliant Subject Vehicles 

in Maine between 2008 and 2015. 

95. Window stickers affixed to each of the Subject Vehicles for sale or lease reflected 

average "smog ratings" when, in fact, the Subject Vehicles' NOx emissions-a major factor in 

smog ratings-actually exceeded applicable standards by as much as 40 times. For example, the 

representations below were affixed to the window of a 2013 Golf TDI: 

26 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 27 of 38
Fuel Economy ~34:PG 

combined city/hwy olty 

2 .9 gallons per 100 rnll&s 

Annual fuel C0St 

$1,700 

Good Clean Diesel Fun. 

7 T T7lT13Q :v 

Compact Cars range from 14 to 60 MPC. 

The best whlcle rmes 112 MPGe. 

42 

nfghway 

YouS8V8 

$3,100 

in fuel costs 

over 5 years 

compared to the 

average new vehicle. 

Smog Rating (m~p!po oniyJ 

96. In California emissions warranties (applicable to residents of Maine pursuant to 

the Maine LEV Rule, 06-096 CMR chapter 127, § 5), Defendants expressly warranted to each 

purchaser or lessee and any subsequent purchaser or lessee that every Subject Vehicle was 

"designed, built and equipped" to conform with applicable CARB requirements ( and, therefore, 

the Maine LEV Rule), including NOx exhaust emission standards. 

97. These express warranties were categorically false in light of the installation of the 

defeat devices. 

98. As a result of Defendants' business practices and failure to disclose that under 

normal operating conditions the Subject Vehicles emit up to 40 times the allowed levels ofNOx 

pollution, Defendants sold and leased Subject Vehicles that, based on initial estimates, have 

illegally emitted over 45,000 additional tons ofNOx emissions in the U.S. 

27 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 28 of 38
REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

99. Maine's environmental laws require motor vehicles to meet certain emissions 

standards. 

100. The Maine Air Law, 38 M.R.S. § 585-D, provides that the Department may adopt 

and enforce standards that meet the requirements of Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 7507, relating to control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines. Section 1 77 of the Clean Air Act provides authority to states such as Maine to adopt 

and enforce for any model year standards relating to control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and take certain other actions (including requiring 

certification, inspection, or other approval as condition precedent to initial retail sale, titling, or 

registration) if such standards are identical to California standards for which a waiver has been 

granted for such model year. 

101. The Maine Air Law, 38 M.R.S. § 585-D, provides that the "standards, known as a 

'low-emission vehicle program,' must be designed to prevent air pollution and achieve and 

maintain ambient air quality standards within the State." 

102. Pursuant to the Maine Air Law and the federal Clean Air Act, the Department 

adopted 06-096 CMR Chapter 12 7, New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards ("Maine LEV 

Rule") effective beginning with model year 2001. 

103. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule has incorporated by 

reference numerous emission-related standards from the State of California's motor vehicle 

standards found in the California Code of Regulations ("CCR"), Title 13, including California's 

exhaust emission standards, making these standards identical to California standards. See 

Chapter 127, § 3 & Appendix A (listing sections incorporated by reference). California's 

28 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 29 of 38
standards are generally more stringent than those promulgated by EPA and enforced in those 

states that have not chosen to incorporate and enforce California's standards. As a result, new 

vehicles delivered for sale or lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, imported, or rented in 

Maine must meet more stringent emissions standards than many other states, and violations of 

these standards are violations of Maine law. 

104. Through the Maine Air Law and the Maine LEV Rule, Maine has established a 

comprehensive regulatory scheme designed to prevent the release of pollution to the air by 

controlling the amount of air contaminants, like NOx, that are emitted from motor vehicles. 

105. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, 

§§ 2(D) & 4(A), has prohibited any person, including a manufacturer or dealer, from delivering 

for sale or lease, offering for sale or lease, selling or leasing, importing, or renting a new vehicle 

that is a 2001 and subsequent model-year passenger car or light-duty truck, unless the vehicle or 

engine is California-certified, meaning the vehicle has a valid executive order from and is 

approved by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") for sale in California. To be 

certified by CARB, among other things, a vehicle must be demonstrated to meet exhaust 

emission requirements of the applicable California regulations. 

106. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, 

§ 4(A)(l ), has prohibited any person, including a manufacturer or dealer, from delivering for sale 

or lease, offering for sale or lease, selling or leasing, importing, or renting a new vehicle that is a 

2001 and subsequent model-year passenger car or light-duty truck, unless the vehicle complies 

with the exhaust emissions standards, including NOx, for passenger vehicles, incorporated from 

California's standards into this rule. 

29 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 30 of 38
107. At all times relevant to this Complaint, but varying somewhat depending upon the 

version of the rule in effect, the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A)(2), has prohibited any 

person, including a manufacturer or dealer, from delivering for sale or lease, offering for sale or 

lease, selling or leasing, importing, or renting a new vehicle that is a 2001 and subsequent 

model-year passenger car or light-duty truck, unless the vehicle complies with the emission 

control label requirements, the smog index label requirements for 2002 through 2009 model 

years, and the "Environmental Performance Label" or a "Federal Fuel Economy and 

Environmental Label" for 2010 and subsequent model years, in accordance with 13 CCR § 1965. 

108. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, 

§ 4(A)(5) and Appendix A, has prohibited any person, including a manufacturer or dealer, from 

delivering for sale or lease, offering for sale or lease, selling or leasing, importing, or renting a 

new vehicle that is a 2001 and subsequent model-year passenger car or light-duty truck, unless 

the vehicle complies with the malfunction and diagnostic system requirements in the 

incorporated California regulations which set forth various requirements for the functioning of 

the on-board diagnostic ("OBD") system. 

109. Since 1999, Maine has required an enhanced vehicle inspection that includes 

visual and electronic examination of the OBD system for motor vehicles that are required to be 

registered in Cumberland County. 29-A M.R.S. §§ 1751(2-A), 1756(7); 16-222 CMR Chapter 1, 

§§ 100.01(9), 115.01(10), 115.40(2). 

110. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule, through its 

incorporation of California regulations, has prohibited the use of defeat devices in any new lightduty vehicles and certain other vehicles. See Chapter 127, § 4(A)(l); 13 CCR§ 1961(d) (model 

year 2001 to 2014); 13 CCR§ 1961.2(d) (model year 2015 on). 

30 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 31 of 38
111. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Maine law has prohibited operating a 

motor vehicle on a public way if any operational element of the air pollution control system of 

that vehicle has been removed, dismantled, or otherwise rendered inoperative. 29-A M.R.S. 

§ 2111(2). 

112. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine. LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 5, 

has required for all 2004 and subsequent model-year California-certified vehicles delivered for 

sale to Maine, that each manufacturer shall provide a warranty for the ultimate purchaser and 

each subsequent purchaser that complies with the requirements of the incorporated California 

regulations. 

113. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 8, 

has required manufacturers to submit annually to the Department reports documenting total new 

vehicles delivered for sale or lease in Maine, and demonstrating that the manufacturer has met 

the fleet requirements for Maine contained in Chapter 127, § 7. Depending on the version of the 

Maine LEV Rule in effect during the times relevant to this Complaint, Section 7 has required, for 

2004 through 2014 model years, that each manufacturer shall comply with the fleet average 

NMOG exhaust emission requirements, in accordance with 13 CCR§ 1961, and for 2015 and 

subsequent model years, each manufacturer shall comply with the fleet average NMOG + NOx 

exhaust emission requirements, in accordance with 13 CCR§ 1961.2. 

114. Pursuant to 3 8 M.R.S. § 348(1 ), in the event of a violation of any provision of the 

laws administered by the Department or of any rule of the Department, the Attorney General 

may institute a civil action and may institute injunction proceedings to enjoin any further 

violation thereof. 

31 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 32 of 38
115. Pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 349(2), a person who violates a law or rule administered 

by the Department is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $100 and not more than $10,000 

for each day of the violation. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE LEV RULE ARISING FROM 

DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO OBTAIN OR RECEIVE VALID CARB 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

116. The State re-alleges the paragraphs above and incorporates them herein by 

reference. 

117. Pursuant to the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A), no person, including a 

manufacturer or dealer, shall deliver for sale or lease, offer for sale or lease, sell or lease, import, 

or rent a new vehicle that is a 2001 and subsequent model-year passenger car or light-duty truck, 

in Maine unless the vehicle or engine is California-certified. That is, new vehicles must be 

covered by a valid executive order from CARB and approved by CARB for sale in California. 

Chapter 127, §§ 4(A), (2)(D). California executive orders include certification that vehicles 

comply with California's exhaust emission standards. 

118. The Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4, applies to all of the model years and 

vehicle types represented by the Subject Vehicles. 

119. For each of the model years 2009 through 2016, Defendants did not obtain or 

receive valid CARB executive orders for the Subject Vehicles because the executive orders were 

procured by submitting to CARB fraudulent emissions data and information that failed to 

disclose the existence of the defeat devices. 

120. For each of the model years 2009 through 2016, Defendants delivered for sale or 

lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, imported, or rented the Subject Vehicles, or caused 

32 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 33 of 38
the Subject Vehicles to be delivered for sale or lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, 

imp01ied, or rented, in Maine without valid CARB executive orders for all applicable 

requirements of the California Code of Regulations adopted and incorporated into the Maine 

LEV Rule by reference, in violation of the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A). 

121. Each Subject Vehicle without a valid CARB executive order in violation of 

Chapter 127 represents a separate violation for the purpose of 38 M.R.S. § 349(2), and a civil 

penalty for each day of continued violation should be assessed. 

COUNT II. VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE LEV RULE EMISSIONS STANDARDS 

AND ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC REQUIREMENTS ARISING FROM 

DEFENDANTS' USE OF DEFEAT DEVICES 

122. The State re-alleges the paragraphs above and incorporates them herein by 

reference. 

123. Pursuant to the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A)(l) and (5) and Appendix 

A, no person, including a manufacturer or dealer, shall deliver for sale or lease, offer for sale or 

lease, sell or lease, import, or rent a new vehicle (that is a 2001 and subsequent model-year 

passenger car or light-duty truck) in Maine, unless the vehicle or engine complies with the 

exhaust emissions standards and the malfunction and diagnostic system requirements in the 

California regulations adopted and incorporated into the Maine LEV Rule by reference. 

124. The exhaust emissions standards incorporated by reference include, but are not 

limited to, emissions standards for NOx that are set forth in 13 CCR§§ 1961 & 1961.2. 

125. For each of the model years 2009 through 2016, Defendants delivered for sale or 

lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, imported, or rented the Subject Vehicles, or caused 

the Subject Vehicles to be delivered for sale or lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, 

imported, or rented, in Maine, and those Subject Vehicles exceeded the NOx emissions standards 

33 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 34 of 38
in violation of Chapter 127, § 4(A)(l), and contained defeat devices that obviated the intended 

purpose of the OBD system in violation of the various requirements for the functioning of the 

OBD system as set forth in 13 CCR§ 1968.1 and 1968.2, in violation of the Maine LEV Rule, 

Chapter 127, § 4(A)(5) and Appendix A. 

126. Each Subject Vehicle in violation of the NOx emissions standards and the OBD 

system requirements in Chapter 127 represents a separate violation for the purpose of 38 M.R.S. 

§ 349(2), and a civil penalty for each day of continued violation should be assessed. 

COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE LEV RULE LABELING 

REQUIREMENTS 

127. The State re-alleges the paragraphs above and incorporates them herein by 

reference. 

128. Pursuant to the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A)(2), no person, including a 

manufacturer or dealer, shall deliver for sale or lease, offer for sale or lease, sell or lease, import, 

or rent a new vehicle (that is a 2001 and subsequent model-year passenger car or light-duty 

truck) in Maine unless the vehicle or engine complies with the emission control label 

requirements, the smog index label requirements for 2002 through 2009 model years, and the 

"Environmental Performance Label" or a "Federal Fuel Economy and Environmental Label" for 

2010 and subsequent model years in accordance with 13 CCR § 1965. 

129. The emission control and environmental labels affixed to the Subject Vehicles 

were not valid because Defendants fraudulently procured the certifications on which the labels 

were based by disclosing to California inaccurate and falsified emissions and technical 

information about the Subject Vehicles. 

130. Accordingly, for each of the model years 2009 through 2016, Defendants 

delivered for sale or lease, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, imp01ied, or rented the 

34 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 35 of 38
Subject Vehicles, or caused the Subject Vehicles to be delivered for sale or lease, offered for sale 

or lease, sold or leased, imported, or rented, in Maine without valid environmental labels, in 

violation of the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 4(A)(2). 

131. Each Subject Vehicle in violation of the labelling requirements in Chapter 127 

represents a separate violation for the purpose of 38 M.R.S. § 349(2), and a civil penalty for each 

day of continued violation should be assessed. 

COUNT IV: VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE LEV RULE ON WARRANTIES 

132. The State re-alleges the paragraphs above and incorporates them herein by 

reference. 

133. The Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 5, requires manufacturers of 2004 and 

subsequent model-year California-certified vehicles that are delivered for sale to Maine to 

provide a wairnnty for the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that complies with 

the requirements of 13 CCR§§ 2035 through 2040, and 2046. 

134. By installing and using a defeat device on each of the Subject Vehicles to make it 

impossible for its emissions control system to perform as it was and is required to perform, 

Defendants violated the terms of their warranties and could not possibly continue to warrant that 

each such vehicle would comply with the terms of those warranties, in violation of 

Chapter 127, § 5. 

135. Each Subject Vehicle delivered for sale to Maine in violation of the warranty 

requirement in Chapter 127 represents a separate violation for the purpose of 38 M.R.S. 

§ 349(2), and a civil penalty for each day of continued violation should be assessed. 

35 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 36 of 38
COUNT V. VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE LEV RULE ON FLEET AVERAGE 

EMISSIONS AND REPORTING 

136. The State re-alleges the paragraphs above and incorporates them herein by 

reference. 

137. The Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 8, requires manufacturers to submit 

annually to the Department reports documenting total new vehicles delivered for sale or lease in 

Maine, and demonstrating that the manufacturer has met its fleet requirements, including for 

NMOG and NMOG + NOx emission requirements, pursuant to Chapter 127, § 7. 

138. The Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 7, requires manufacturers to comply with 

the fleet average NMOG emission requirements for 2004 through 2014 model years, and to 

comply with the fleet average NMOG + NOx emission requirements for 2015 and subsequent 

years. 

139. For each of the model years 2009 through 2016, Defendants violated Chapter 127, 

§§ 7 and 8 by submitting to the Department NMOG or NMOG + NOx fleet average reports 

pursuant to the Maine LEV Rule, Chapter 127, § 8, that failed to accurately demonstrate 

compliance with fleetwide average emission requirements due to fraudulent certification and 

emissions data for the Subject Vehicles because of the use of the defeat devices. 

140. Each fleetwide average report for the Subject Vehicles submitted to the 

Department that failed to accurately demonstrate compliance with fleetwide average emission 

requirements due to fraudulent certification and emissions data, in violation of Chapter 127, 

represents a separate violation for the purpose of 38 M.R.S. § 349(2). 

36 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 37 of 38
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the State requests that this Court, after adjudication on the merits, grant 

the following relief: 

A. Order Defendants to pay to the State of Maine civil penalties pursuant to 

38 M.R.S. § 349(2) for the violations set forth in this Complaint; 

B. Enter an order pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 348(1) permanently enjoining Defendants 

from delivering for sale or lease, offering for sale or lease, selling, leasing, 

importing, or renting in Maine any new motor vehicle equipped with a defeat 

device or any new motor vehicle not eligible for sale or lease pursuant to 

emissions and environmental standards in Maine; 

C. Award the State costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1522; and 

D. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. 

Dated: December 29, 2016 

37 

Respectfully submitted, 

JANET T. MILLS 

Attorney General 

"GERALD 

L~~ D. REID 

Maine Bar No. 8014 

MARY M. SAUER 

Maine Bar No. 7935 

Assistant Attorneys General 

6 State House Station 

Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 

207-626-8800 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-00784-CRB Document 1-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 38 of 38