— A Volvo class action lawsuit alleges the rearview camera systems are defective in several models, but Volvo argues all the allegations mean nothing because recalls took care of any possible problems.
The backup camera recall lawsuit says the camera systems have software defects and the Android operating systems are defective in these vehicles.
- 2021-2025 Volvo XC40
- 2022-2025 Volvo C40
- 2022-2025 Volvo XC60
- 2022-2025 Volvo XC90
- 2022-2025 Volvo S60
- 2022-2025 Volvo S90
- 2022-2025 Volvo V60
- 2022-2025 Volvo V90
- 2025 Volvo EX30
- 2025 Volvo EX40
- 2025 Volvo EX90
The class action was filed by New York plaintiff David Weinbach who purchased a 2023 Volvo vehicle in November 2025 that was recalled the following month to repair backup camera problems. He filed the backup camera lawsuit before Volvo mailed recall letters to owners.
The lawsuit asserts because of “software and hardware defects and failures in the design, development, testing, and validation of the Android Automotive Operating System,” the backup camera display “freezes, crashes, or becomes unresponsive.”
You can read more about his Volvo class action lawsuit here.
Volvo's Motion to Dismiss
Volvo told the judge the plaintiff admits that Volvo announced a rearview camera recall seven months before the plaintiff purchased his vehicle. But the class action doesn't say if the plaintiff or anyone else took his Volvo to a dealer for recall repairs.
And Volvo notes how the plaintiff admits Volvo issued another backup camera recall shortly after the plaintiff purchased his vehicle but before he filed his nationwide class action lawsuit. However, the automaker says the plaintiff doesn't claim his Volvo received the December 2025 backup camera recall repairs.
Volvo says even though there are no claims of having his vehicle repaired during the recall, the plaintiff still claims those repairs failed for all the vehicles in the country. The automaker further argues the plaintiff only offers "conclusory and factually unsupported allegations."
Volvo's motion to dismiss alleges the backup camera class action fails to explain how Volvo supposedly “concealed” a “defect” when Volvo publicly announced the April 2025 recall to freely repair camera failures.
The class action alleges Volvo committed fraud, but fraud allegations require the plaintiff to identify any statement, advertisement, or other communication that wrongly convinced the plaintiff to purchase his vehicle. Volvo argues the plaintiff fails to name any fraudulent Volvo advertisement or statement he viewed or received prior to or even after his purchase.
Additionally, Volvo told the judge the plaintiff fails to name any advertisement or statement he relied upon.
The backup camera lawsuit contends Volvo violated its warranty obligations, but the automaker argues the claim must be dismissed because the plaintiff doesn't say he sought a warranty repair from a dealership. The plaintiff also doesn't claim he requested a repair but was refused that repair.
According to Volvo, the warranty covers manufacturing defects, but the plaintiff allegedly filed the class action over backup camera design defects which are not covered under warranty.
Then there is a claim for alleged violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Volvo told the judge to bring an MMWA claim the lawsuit must include 100 named plaintiffs, but the backup camera class action only names one plaintiff.
The Volvo backup camera recall lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York: David Weinbach v. Volvo Car USA, LLC., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC.
