news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

it home reported on september 23 that after seven years of legal battles, a canadian man finally won the lawsuit against bmw over the false promotion of the i3 model's range. however, despite the victory, he lost thousands of dollars in high legal fees.

in 2017, nanro kleiman sued bmw, alleging that the company's claims about the range of the 2014 i3 were misleading. at the time, bmw's canadian website claimed that the car had a range of up to 200 kilometers in eco pro and eco pro + driving modes.

however, a month after purchasing the car, kleiman discovered that the actual range was far less than advertised. on one occasion, he and his wife drove the i3 on a 159-kilometer trip, but despite sunny weather, suitable temperatures and no load, the vehicle could only travel 158 kilometers.

after analyzing the information on the bmw canada website at the time, it was found thatbetween november 28 and december 10, 2014, i3's promotional materials were quietly adjusted.the updated figures showed a range of 130km in comfort mode, 160km in eco pro mode and 156km in eco pro+ mode. although kleiman showed bmw archived evidence of these changes, the company insisted the i3 was never advertised with a 200km range.

after years of litigation and a non-jury trial, ontario superior court associate justice james mins recently ruled against bmw and its toronto dealership, awarding kleiman $5,000 in damages. however, to kleiman's dismay,the ruling also requires kleiman to pay bmw $11,140 (about 78,575 yuan in current currency) in attorney fees and litigation costs.because he had previously rejected bmw's $10,000 out-of-court settlement offer.

in court documents, bmw denied it had falsely advertised the i3's range, saying "the range of all battery electric vehicles is affected by individual driving behavior, the vehicle's external environment and the use of in-vehicle functions while driving."

kleiman said he rejected bmw's settlement because it contained a confidentiality clause and he wanted the public to know. he sought $25,000 in damages, roughly equivalent to his "out-of-pocket" expenses, and said the court's decision did not really make bmw pay for its actions. he said: "while i am satisfied that the judge found that bmw misrepresented the vehicles, his damages award contradicts the reasoning for that finding and fails to hold bmw accountable for its actions."