Kia and Hyundai Theft Claims: MDL 3052 Status

The Kia and Hyundai vehicle theft litigation is a federal multidistrict proceeding about cars built with a steel key ignition and no engine immobilizer, which the complaints say made them unusually easy to steal after a method spread on social media. The cases are consolidated as MDL No. 3052 in the Central District of California before Judge James V. Selna. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 100 actions pending as of October 1, 2026, against 117 filed in total. A consumer class settlement was granted final approval on October 1, 2024, but the settlement administrator says appeals have been filed and the settlement has not become effective, so payments are not being made.

What the litigation is and which vehicles it covers

The Panel’s transfer order, filed December 13, 2022, centralized the federal actions and changed the caption to In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (transfer order). The order records sixteen actions in fourteen districts plus 34 potentially related actions, and describes the vehicles as “2011-2022 Kia vehicles and 2015-2022 Hyundai vehicles that were equipped with traditional ‘insert-and-turn’ steel key ignition systems.”

The settlement defines its own class vehicles model by model. The Hyundai notice lists the Accent and Elantra for 2011 through 2022 and the Sonata for 2011 through 2019, among others. The Kia notice lists the Forte for 2011 through 2021, the Optima for 2011 through 2020, and the Soul, Sorento and Sportage for 2011 through 2022 (Hyundai notice, Kia settlement site).

What the lawsuits allege

The transfer order summarizes the common claim. Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles “are defective because the cars lack engine immobilizer technology, which prevents them from being started unless a code is transmitted from a unique smart key,” and that vehicles without an immobilizer are “particularly susceptible to being stolen.”

Those are allegations in complaints. No document reviewed records a court finding that any vehicle was defective, that a defect caused a particular theft, or that the manufacturers are liable.

The theft method and the regulatory response

On February 14, 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that Hyundai and Kia had developed theft deterrent software for vehicles that lack an immobilizer and would provide it free (NHTSA release). The agency said the update extends the alarm from 30 seconds to one minute and requires the key to be in the ignition switch to turn the vehicle on. It put the population at approximately 3.8 million Hyundais and 4.5 million Kias.

The same release states that the social media challenge “has spread nationwide and has resulted in at least 14 reported crashes and eight fatalities,” and that the companies had provided more than 26,000 steering wheel locks to 77 law enforcement agencies in 12 states since November 2022. Those figures are the agency’s, not a court’s.

Kia’s owner notification, dated August 23, 2023, describes an upgrade that “can be installed on your vehicle to restrict operation of the vehicle’s ignition system should your locked vehicle be the subject of a break-in and theft attempt without the key,” and asks owners to have it installed before December 1, 2024 (Kia notification).

NHTSA called the programme a service campaign. The documents reviewed do not describe it as a recall, and no recall of these vehicles for the absence of an immobilizer appears in the material cited here.

The class settlement

The consumer plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval on July 20, 2023. The long form notice describes a common fund of at least $80 million and up to $145 million, paid by the defendants, to resolve claims for economic losses tied to qualifying thefts and attempted thefts (notice). The notice states that the fund is non-reversionary.

The notice sets caps for the main benefits. A total loss may be reimbursed up to 60 percent of the Black Book value, and damage to a vehicle or personal property up to the greater of $3,375 or 33 percent of that value. Owners of eligible vehicles may claim up to $50 for a steering wheel lock bought before the upgrade was available; owners of vehicles not eligible for the software upgrade may claim up to $300 for a lock or similar system, and key fobs needed for the upgrade may be reimbursed up to $350 each, limited to two per vehicle.

The court granted final approval on October 1, 2024 (final approval order). The administrator’s sites state that several appeals were filed, that the settlement has not become effective, and that payments cannot be made until the appeals are resolved (Hyundai settlement update, Kia settlement site). The notice set May 3, 2024 as the deadline to opt out or object and July 15, 2024 as the fairness hearing date; the administrator lists April 28, 2025 as the claim deadline.

The settlement website states that no party has been found liable; approval is not a ruling on the merits.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed: the Panel centralized the actions as MDL No. 3052 before Judge Selna; the report counts 100 actions pending and 117 filed as of October 1, 2026; NHTSA announced the free software campaign on February 14, 2023; the court granted final approval on October 1, 2024; and the Ninth Circuit ruled on the insurer appeal on September 14, 2026.

Alleged and not decided: that the absence of an immobilizer was a design defect, that it caused any particular theft or death, that the manufacturers knew and failed to warn, and the amount of any individual’s loss. The settlement includes no admission of liability.

Where the remaining claims stand

The class settlement does not release every claim. The notice excludes “all past, present, or future claims for (i) personal injury, (ii) death, and (iii) subrogation by licensed insurers,” and government entity claims. Those claims continue in the MDL on separate tracks.

The docket records a subrogation bellwether case brought by State Auto. On September 14, 2026, the court vacated the jury trial set for September 15, and the minutes state that “the Jury Trial will not be going forward at this time” and that the court “will rule on the papers on all outstanding motions” (entries 2055 and 2058). No verdict appears in the entries reviewed.

On September 14, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation from the subrogation track for lack of personal jurisdiction (opinion). The panel held that the Korean manufacturers were subject to specific jurisdiction in California and left the reasonableness inquiry to the district court on remand.

The docket also shows a governmental entities track, with a status conference set for November 10, 2026 (entry 2068). Separate appeals by individuals challenge orders on their requests to opt out of the class settlement (entries 1974 and 2073); those concern exclusion from the class, not a challenge to the approval order.

Key dates

• December 13, 2022: the Panel files the transfer order creating MDL No. 3052 before Judge Selna.
• February 14, 2023: NHTSA announces the free anti-theft software campaign.
• May 3, 2024: deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement (long form notice).
• October 1, 2024: the court grants final approval (final approval order).
• April 28, 2025: claim submission deadline listed by the settlement administrator.
• September 14, 2026: the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal of the Korean manufacturers from the subrogation track.
• September 15, 2026: the court vacates the State Auto jury trial (docket, entries 2055 and 2058).

What this does not establish

Nothing in the record reviewed establishes that the vehicles are defective as a matter of law, that the lack of an immobilizer caused any specific theft or injury, or that any manufacturer is liable. The settlement is not effective, the administrator says payments cannot be made while appeals are pending, and the claim deadline it lists has passed. The record also does not show a final appellate ruling on the approval, a verdict in the subrogation track, or a court order resolving the government entities’ claims. The MDL versus class action guide explains how the consolidated pretrial structure differs from the class settlement, and how mass tort litigation works describes the stages that can follow.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a settlement in the Kia and Hyundai theft litigation?

Yes. The consumer class settlement received final approval on October 1, 2024, with a common fund of at least $80 million and up to $145 million. The administrator states that appeals were filed and that payments cannot be made until they are resolved.

Was there a recall for the missing immobilizers?

NHTSA described the software as a service campaign, not a recall. The agency announced in February 2023 that Hyundai and Kia would install it free of charge. The documents reviewed do not describe a recall of these vehicles for the absence of an engine immobilizer.

Which vehicles are covered by the settlement?

The notices list specific models and model years. For Hyundai they include the Accent and Elantra for 2011 through 2022 and the Sonata for 2011 through 2019. For Kia they include the Forte for 2011 through 2021, the Optima for 2011 through 2020, and the Soul, Sorento and Sportage for 2011 through 2022. The full lists are in the notices.

Can someone still make a claim?

The claim deadline listed by the administrator was April 28, 2025, and the settlement is not effective. Personal injury, death, insurer subrogation and government entity claims were excluded from the class and remain in the MDL. Anyone with a question about an individual claim should consult a lawyer and check the docket and the applicable limitations period.

Sources

1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
2. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “Transfer Order, In re Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3052” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: “Hyundai and Kia Launch Service Campaign to Prevent Theft of Millions of Vehicles Targeted by Social Media Challenge” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
4. Kia America, Inc. (filed with NHTSA): “Important Anti-Theft Software Upgrade Available on Your Vehicle at No Cost, Kia owner notification CS2308AFL201” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
5. Settlement Administrator for the Hyundai and Kia Vehicle Theft Settlement: “Long Form Notice, In re Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
6. United States District Court for the Central District of California: “Order Regarding Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, No. 8:22-ml-03052” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
7. Settlement Administrator for the Hyundai and Kia Vehicle Theft Settlement: “Hyundai Vehicle Theft Settlement - Important Documents and Case Update” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
8. Settlement Administrator for the Hyundai and Kia Vehicle Theft Settlement: “Kia Vehicle Theft Settlement - Case Update and Eligible Vehicles” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
9. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CourtListener RECAP): “Docket, In re Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litigation, No. 8:22-ml-03052” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
10. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “Opinion, State Farm General Insurance Company v. Hyundai Motor Company, No. 24-5219 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)

Collective Claim publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.