VW willing to settle US suit over fuel economy ratings, but admits no guilt
THE US operation of Volkswagen on Friday said it has agreed on certain moves meant to settle suits over disputed fuel economy ratings of some of the brand’s cars.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA) said it has “reached an agreement with private plaintiffs to resolve outstanding claims concerning the fuel economy ratings of certain Volkswagen Group model year 2013-2017 gasoline vehicles sold or leased in the United States.”
But VWGoA stressed the agreement only removes the “uncertainty of protracted litigation;” it does not include any admission of liability or wrongdoing by Volkswagen.
The suit stems from a discrepancy over the fuel economy information given by VWGoA for approximately 98,000 vehicles sold or leased in the US. The figure has allowed Volkswagen to earn extra Greenhouse Gas credits.
VWGoA said the fuel economy information will be “restated to reflect a discrepancy of one mile per gallon, when rounded according to the US-specific ‘Monroney’ label requirements.”
Under the proposed settlement, VWGoA said it has agreed, among other terms, to reimburse eligible customers for the fuel economy restatement. Eligible customers will receive payments ranging from $5.40 to $24.30 for each month the vehicle is owned or leased. The total value of the settlement, which is subject to court approval, is approximately $96.5 million.
VWGoA said it will also adjust its Greenhouse Gas credits to account for any excess credits associated with the fuel economy discrepancy. The adjustment is subject to final approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“Volkswagen is committed to providing customers with transparent fuel economy data for our vehicles, in line with US labeling requirements,” said VWGoA executive vice president for communications Pietro Zollino.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.