Filed under: Government/Legal, Technology, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Infotainment

A national law firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, has filed a proposed class action lawsuit whose presupposition is that MyFord Touch is defective. Specifically, the complaint states that the system – as well as the MyLincoln Touch and MyMercury Touch clones – often freeze, fail to respond to voice or touch commands and have issues connecting to mobile phones.
According to Hagens Berman managing partner Steve Berman, MyFord Touch is a theoretically “brilliant idea” that falls short in actual execution. Said Berman in a press release, “In reality, the system is fundamentally flawed, failing to reliably provide functionality, amounting to an inconvenience at best, and a serious safety issue at worst.”
Other MFT issues enumerated within the 41-page filing include problems controlling the window defroster, rear-view camera and navigation system. The suit maintains that Ford is aware of the problem but has yet to submit a workable and acceptable solution to MFT customers. Scroll down if you’d like to read the full press release.
Continue reading Proposed class-action lawsuit targets ‘defective’ MyFord Touch
Proposed class-action lawsuit targets ‘defective’ MyFord Touch originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Continue reading “Report: Proposed class-action lawsuit targets ‘defective’ MyFord Touch”


The California court system has found that Toyota Motor Insurance Services does not violate the state’s consumer warranty law. According to Automotive News, a court of appeal found that the contracts offer enough services outside of the factory warranty to be considered legal. Toyota was originally sued after Weber DeSiqueira purchased a then-new 2007 Tundra. At the time, the vehicle came with a three-year, 36,000 mile warranty, but DeSiqueira also laid down $1,145 for a Toyota Extra Care Vehicle Service Agreement. The lawsuit alleged that the service agreement covered the same items as the factory, putting the Japanese automaker in violation of the California warranty law.