In a recent ruling by Ontario Superior Court of Justicein Canada, bmw has been ordered to compensate a dissatisfied customer for the difference between the actual and announced autonomy of your BMW i3 model.
Read also: BMW, Ford and Honda join forces to transform the electrical grid
Ronen Kleimanthe plaintiff, had purchased the electric model in 2014 and took the case to court in 2017 after observing that the car’s performance did not match what the company had promised.
You can read: BMW and MINI alert for possible brake failure
This verdict not only calls into question the transparency in the advertising of electric vehiclesbut also opens a debate about how companies manage consumer expectations in relation to new automotive technologies.
The case is a clear example of how the growing electric vehicle (EV) market faces challenges in terms of the information it provides to users, particularly with regard to battery autonomy.
As automakers invest millions to promote their electric vehicles as the future of mobility, the accuracy of autonomy data, especially in real-world conditions, has become a point of friction with customers.
The litigation: announced autonomy vs. reality on the road
The legal conflict began when Kleiman, a Toronto resident, discovered that his BMW i3 did not achieve the range that BMW had advertised in its advertising materials.
The difference between the distance the vehicle could travel on a single charge and what the brand had promised turned out to be considerable, according to the customer, leading him to accuse BMW of misrepresentation.
This type of dispute is not unusual in the electric vehicle sector, as factors such as weather, driving style and the use of additional vehicle functions can significantly affect range.
Throughout the process, Kleiman argued that the company should have been more precise in its range estimatesconsidering the variables that influence the real performance of the car.
In his lawsuit, filed in 2017, he demanded $25,000 in damages, alleging that the difference between the promised and actual range seriously affected his experience with the vehicle.
BMW denies misrepresentation, but adjusts its advertising
bmwboth through its subsidiary in Canada and the BMW dealership in Toronto, denied any accusations of cheating.
The company’s defense focused on the fact that the range of an electric vehicle depends on various factors that are outside the manufacturer’s control.
These factors include driver behavior, weather conditions and the use of on-board systems such as air conditioning or heatingwhich consume additional energy.
Despite the initial refusal, BMW adjusted the information available on its website, which led to more realistic figures regarding the i3’s autonomy.
This change, although not officially recognized as an admission of guilt, showed greater alignment between advertising promises and user experience. However, the company continued to argue in court that its original estimates did not constitute a deliberate misrepresentation.
The court ruling
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of Kleiman, acknowledging that BMW had misrepresented the range of its i3 model. However, the compensation awarded was only $5,000 dollarsmuch less than $25,000 dollars requested by the plaintiff.
Associate Justice James Minns, who handed down the sentence June 13pointed out that, although there was some responsibility on the part of BMW, the difference in range did not justify the total sum requested.
Interestingly, despite this partial victory, the court also ordered Kleiman to reimburse BMW a total of $11,140 in legal feesincluding attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
This measure was taken because Kleiman had previously rejected an offer from the company for $10,000 dollarswhich included a non-disclosure clause. Kleiman explained that his refusal to accept the offer was due to his desire to make the case public, with the aim of warning other consumers about what he considered deceptive practices.
Kleiman’s battle: justice at a personal cost
In statements to local media, Kleiman expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling. While he was pleased that the court recognized the misrepresentation by BMW, he considered that the compensation did not reflect the seriousness of the problem.
In addition, he mentioned that the personal expenses he had to assume to take the case to court exceeded the $25,000 dollarsmeaning that, despite the ruling in his favor, he ended up with a financial loss.
Kleiman also criticized what he sees as a lack of adequate options for affected consumers to obtain fair redress without having to bear high costs.
He noted that BMW could have offered more satisfactory solutions, such as canceling the lease, refunding the money paid or replacing its model. 2014 for a newer version with a higher capacity battery. These options, however, were never considered by the company.
What does this case mean for the future of electric vehicles?
The case of Ronen Kleiman against BMW Canada highlights one of the biggest challenges facing the electric vehicle industry: consumer confidence in promises of autonomy.
As manufacturers continue improving battery technologies and energy management systemsaccuracy in performance estimates remains a crucial issue.
For automakers, this ruling could serve as a reminder of the importance of managing customer expectations clearly and transparently.
Electric vehicles have come a long way in terms of technological developmentbut consumers should be fully aware of factors that can affect real-life performance.
As the automotive industry moves toward a more electric future, it will be critical for manufacturers to adopt more precise and less ambiguous communication approaches.