Gonzalez v. General Motors, LLC is a class action suit filed on June 1, 2026 in the Eastern District of California, alleging General Motors knowingly sold defective trucks.[i] Specifically, the complaint alleges it sold trucks knowing the back window leaked.[ii] Despite this case involving issues with a product, this is not a products liability case, according to the causes of action, but is instead a deceptive advertising action, with a quick “cut-to-the-chase” in the second cause of action which asserts that plaintiffs can be awarded punitive damages.[iii]

The Complaint

The complaint lists two causes of action: 1) Violations of Business and Professions Code 17200, and 2) Violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[iv]

Plaintiff Filiberto Gonzalez filed the action on behalf of himself and anyone who, in California, purchased or leased any of several trucks sold by General Motors and placed them into service after January 3, 2019. Mr. Gonzalez purchased his new 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 around April 2019.[v]

The complaint’s recital of factual allegations includes the claim that the trucks were equipped with “defective rear sliding glass windows”, and this allowed water to reach the inside of the cab.[vi] The complaint alleges the windows were designed and constructed in a defective manner making them susceptible to such leaks, potentially causing mold to grow and cause damage to electrical systems in the truck, making the truck unsafe to drive.[vii]

The recitation of facts also alleges General Motors was aware of the defect. Supporting this allegation, Mr. Gonzalez points to a January 2019 Technical Service Bulletin published by General Motors, saying customers may complain of water in the back of the cabs of their trucks.[viii]

The recitation goes on to say General Motors has not disclosed the leak to consumers but instead has concealed this information and not made any effort to protect consumers.[ix] The recitation claims General Motors has not paid for any repairs of any leaking windows. Mr. Gonzalez had his window repaired but paid out of pocket for those repairs. The complaint states any statute of limitations on this claim is tolled by General Motors’ alleged concealment of the alleged defect.

Strategic Choice of Causes of Action

One might instinctively consider Mr. Gonzalez’s claims primarily a products defect case. Presumably, Mr. Gonzalez is suing General Motors because his truck was defective. Typically, one might expect to see a negligence argument, or strict liability, or even breach of warranty. However, none of these claims are causes of action in this case; instead, Mr. Gonzalez argues deceptive advertising and violation of a consumer protection statute. This allows him to sidestep the Economic Loss Rule, which, in a strict products liability context, requires a claim of personal injury or property damage.[x] Thus, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act provides a theory of liability which is more broad than physical defect. Just as importantly, perhaps, is that this approach provides mandatory attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who prevails. Of course, this strategy puts punitive damages on the table.

Defense Industry Takeaway

In analyzing Mr. Gonzalez’s complaint, it is hard to imagine a defendant in this position prevailing. Genuine settlement efforts would seem to be called for early in the matter, taking full advantage of The Apex^SM, such as providing a number for settlement or mediation, accepting responsibility (in this case, General Motors can easily accept responsibility for issuing the Technical Service Bulletin alerting dealers to the potential problem), personalizing the defendant, and arguing the non-economic factors of this case. The defense arguably should be able to distinguish this case from the infamous Ford Pinto cases or the more recent fatal Ford truck rollover case. Following The Apex^SM from the earliest stages of this case can lay the groundwork to avoid juror rage and stop this case from becoming just another of many Nuclear Verdicts®.

Keep Reading

Putting The Pieces Together: Why Doing Puzzles Makes Me a Better Attorney NYC: The City That Never Stops Hosting Federal Preemption Over State Law Safety Claims – What That Means for Industries Regulated by the Federal Government How to Handle FTB-Suspended Entities Products Liability Alert: “Non-Habit Forming” Claims Put Sleep-Aid Marketing Under Scrutiny Give a Number: Why Silence May Be the Defense’s Most Expensive Mistake Being a Good Human is Common Sense Fundamentals of Litigation: What NOT to Tell Your Expert Anatomy of a $12 Million Verdict – Part Three: How The Apex℠ Could Have Changed the Trajectory of a Warren County, New Jersey Trucking Case

More by this author

Punitive Liability Through the Rear Window: Lessons Learned from a Class Action Filing Speculation or Inference: Dasilva v. Union Carbide and Determination of Triable Issue of Fact A Deep Dive Into the Not-So-Modern Problem of “Deepfakes” From Sci-Fi to Humanity: Lawyers Who Inspired Me

Sources

[i]           Gonzalez v. General Motors, unpublished complaint, case no. 1:26-at-02324, pg 1.

[ii]           Ibid, page 3.

[iii]          Ibid, page 14.

[iv]          Ibid, page 14.

[v]           Ibid, page 2.

[vi]          Ibid, page 3.

[vii]         Ibid, page 4.

[viii]         Ibid, page 4.

[ix]          Ibid, page 5.

[x]          Jimenez v. Superior Ct., 29 Cal. 4th 473, 58 P.3d 450 (2002).