By Shawn Henry 
A newly filed class-action lawsuit is targeting Stellantis subsidiary FCA US, LLC and supplier Lear Corporation over electric front-seat height adjusters used in roughly two million vehicles — including the Dodge Charger, Challenger, and Chrysler 300.
What makes this case stand out isn’t just the number of vehicles involved. It’s the language.
The plaintiffs are not only alleging a design defect. They are alleging a broader “conspiracy” to conceal it.
At this stage, those are allegations only. No court has ruled on the claims, no recall has been issued, and no federal crash test failures have been cited. But the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, raises technical questions that could draw attention if the case advances.
Which Vehicles Are Covered in the Lawsuit?
The lawsuit, Richard and Evelyn Alexander v. FCA US LLC, et al., applies to:
- 2011–2023 Dodge Charger
- 2011–2023 Dodge Challenger
- 2011–2023 Chrysler 300
- 2011–2017 Chrysler 200
- 2013–2016 Dodge Dart
According to the complaint, the affected vehicles share a similar electrically powered front-seat height adjustment mechanism supplied by Lear Corporation.
Plaintiffs argue that this component can fail during certain rear-end collisions.
What the Lawsuit Claims About the Seat Height Adjuster
At the center of the case is a powered seat-height adjustment assembly — a common feature in modern vehicles.
According to the lawsuit, the system consists of:
- An electric motor
- A gearbox
- A threaded shaft
- A traveling nut
- A small welded bracket connecting the mechanism
The plaintiffs claim that during low-speed rear-end impacts, the seat-height adjuster can collapse downward due to failure at the weld point.
Importantly, the complaint does not allege that the seat detaches from the vehicle floor. Instead, it claims that the height mechanism itself can deform or collapse during impact.
In everyday driving, the adjuster primarily handles vertical loads — the weight of the occupant. In a rear-end crash, however, forces shift backward. The lawsuit argues that these rearward loads concentrate stress at the welded bracket, potentially causing it to deform.
The complaint further claims that seats adjusted to higher positions may face greater leverage forces in an impact, increasing stress on the mechanism.
Why Seat Positioning Matters in a Crash
The engineering issue raised in the lawsuit centers on occupant positioning.
Modern vehicle safety systems — including seat belts and airbags — are calibrated around expected seating geometry. A sudden drop in seat height during a rear-end collision could, according to the plaintiffs, alter:
- Seat belt angle
- Occupant posture
- Airbag alignment
The lawsuit argues that these changes could affect how restraint systems manage occupant motion.
However, at this stage, the claims rely primarily on testing commissioned by plaintiffs’ attorneys. The complaint does not cite failed federal crash tests or findings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
No Recall, No Federal Findings — For Now
One critical detail in this case is what has not happened.
- No recall has been announced.
- No federal agency has issued findings related to the seat adjuster.
- No court has ruled on the allegations.
As of now, this remains an early-stage legal dispute.
Before any broader action can occur, the case must survive early motions in court and be certified as a class action. Only after certification would the case move into discovery, where internal documents and additional technical analysis could be examined.
Until then, the claims remain unproven.
The “Conspiracy” Allegations
Beyond the engineering defect claim, the lawsuit includes more aggressive accusations. The plaintiffs allege that FCA and Lear committed “mail and wire fraud” by failing to disclose the alleged defect while continuing to sell vehicles equipped with the component.
That language elevates the case beyond a standard product defect claim. However, conspiracy and fraud allegations in civil filings do not equate to established wrongdoing. Those assertions must be tested in court.
Automotive class-action lawsuits alleging concealed defects are not uncommon. Many are dismissed, settled, or resolved without admission of fault. Whether this case follows that pattern remains to be seen.
Engineering Disputes in the Modern Automotive Era
Seat structures are heavily regulated components, subject to federal safety standards and crash testing requirements. Rear-impact performance is governed by established federal guidelines.
The lawsuit does not claim that the vehicles failed regulatory certification. Instead, it argues that real-world collision dynamics expose a structural weakness not adequately addressed.
Engineering disputes of this nature often hinge on competing crash analyses, materials testing, and expert testimony. Plaintiffs typically rely on commissioned testing, while manufacturers defend designs through internal validation data and regulatory compliance records.
The outcome often depends on whether the alleged defect can be consistently reproduced and whether it materially affects occupant safety beyond federal compliance standards.
What Happens Next?
The case is in its early procedural phase.
For the lawsuit to proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must:
- Survive dismissal motions
- Achieve class certification
- Enter discovery
Only after those steps would the case move toward trial or potential settlement discussions.
For now, no changes have been announced for the vehicles listed in the complaint.
Owners of affected Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat Chrysler models are not currently subject to recall or federal action based on the allegations in the suit.
A Legal Battle That Bears Watching
The Dodge Charger, Challenger, and Chrysler 300 have been core pillars of FCA’s performance and full-size sedan lineup for more than a decade. With millions of units on the road, any allegation involving structural safety components naturally attracts attention.
Whether this case develops into a significant safety issue or remains a contested civil dispute will depend on how the courts evaluate the technical evidence.
At this stage, the lawsuit presents claims — not conclusions.
The courts will determine whether the alleged defect exists, whether it constitutes a safety violation, and whether the broader conspiracy allegations hold weight under scrutiny.
Until then, the matter remains unresolved.
