has volkswagen defrauded you?€¦ · 2009-2015 volkswagen golf 2009-2015 volkswagen passat...

10/21/15, 10:55 PMVolkswagen Diesel Fraud Lawsuit

of 2http://www.carfraudsuit.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw75yxBRD78uqEnuG-5…QAQbaxSOk-3LcfOsuOvhuNvk1glxiE9uWiN0BDZmG9-_Ss3N0aAoMx8P8HAQ

Please correct the following errors:

VW has sold nearly 500,000 diesel powered cars in the UnitedStates fitted with deceptive software to cheat emissions tests.

Has Volkswagen defrauded you?

For decades, we have been successfully helping individuals justlike you fight for the compensation and justice deserved. We arethree firms assuming joint responsibility with extensiveexperience.

Why choose us?

2009-2015 Volkswagen Jetta, Jetta Sportwagen2009-2015 Volkswagen Golf2009-2015 Volkswagen Passat2012-2015 Volkswagen Beetle2009-2015 Audi A32016 TDI models may also be entitled to a claim

What models are affected?

If you own a 2009-2015 Golf, Passat, Jetta, or Beetleequipped with a 2-liter diesel engine, you are a victim of thisdeception. The deceptive software turns on an emissioncontrol system during the regulatory test, but keeps it offduring normal driving, spewing up to 40 times the allowedamount of the smog-causing pollutant nitrogen oxide.

VW Diesel Fraud

No Fees unless damages are recovered!

Name *

Email *

Phone Number *

Which VW Diesel car do you own?

Jetta

GET HELP NOW

Get a FREE, confidential evaluation todetermine if you have a claim.Fill out all fields of the form below.

What can you do?

Get Legal Help: 551-252-5902

Lead Counsel GM Ignition Recall - Bob Hilliard, Esq.

American Airlines Crash Flight 587 - Michael Wilens, Esq.

Amtrak Disaster Referring Attorney - Michael Wilens, Esq.

10/21/15, 10:55 PMVolkswagen Diesel Fraud Lawsuit

of 2http://www.carfraudsuit.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw75yxBRD78uqEnuG-5…QAQbaxSOk-3LcfOsuOvhuNvk1glxiE9uWiN0BDZmG9-_Ss3N0aAoMx8P8HAQ

Attorney Advertising.Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice

regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not

create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship

has been established. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2015 CarFraudSuit.com | All rights reserved | Get Legal Help: 551-252-5902

Michael Wilens, Esq.349 5th Ave Suite 622New York, NY 10061

551.252.5902

Pulaski Law Firm, P.L.L.C.4615 Southwest Frwy Suite 850

Houston, TX 77027

Hilliard Muñoz Gonzales L.L.P.719 S Shoreline Blvd, # 500

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Pay it forward, share this information.

6

TweetTweet

4

65

RecommendRecommend

10/22/15, 6:04 AM8 Companies That Sold You Lies

Page 1 of 8http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/companies-lied-to-you_n_5318940.html

The Huffington Post | By Rebecca Hiscott

Posted: 05/16/2014 8:01 am EDT Updated: 05/19/2014 9:59 am EDT

8 Companies That Sold You Lies

If you haven't heard already, those ridiculous-looking “barefoot running shoes” that have been pretty trendy the past couple of years yieldpretty much no health benefits.

That was revealed last week, when Vibram, the company that makes them, settled a class-action lawsuit that essentially called bulls**t on thecompany's claim that the sneakers could help strengthen muscles in the feet and lower legs, improve posture, stimulate neural functionrelated to balance and agility, and "allow the foot and body to move naturally." In pushing the shoes, Vibram joined a big group ofcompanies that have tried to take advantage of people desperate for quick fixes to life's most annoying problems. You know, by sayingproducts do things that they don't. Here's the Hall of Fame.

1. Skechers

Like basically every other "toning" shoe manufacturer claiming its product can burn calories and firm thighs with each step, Skechers’ line ofShape-Ups shoes do nothing of the sort. In 2012, Skechers reached a $40 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for makingscientifically unfounded claims about its sneakers.

Oh, and maybe you remember the Shape-Ups ads that featured an endorsement from a chiropractor who recommended the kicks based onan “independent” clinical study he’d conducted? Yeah, that chiropractor turned out to be married to a Skechers marketing executive, andSkechers paid for the "study." Sketchers didn't respond to The Huffington Post's request for comment.

2. Listerine

October 22, 2015

iOS app Android app More Desktop Alerts Log in Create Account



In 2005, a federal judge forced Listerine to pull ads that claimed the mouthwash was clinically proven to be as effective as floss in fightingtooth and gum decay. In a lawsuit filed by a dental floss manufacturer, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin concluded, "Pfizer’s implicit messagethat Listerine can replace floss is false and misleading.”

According to Chin, “substantial evidence” demonstrated that rinsing with a mouthwash is not as effective as flossing. A representative forPfizer, which owned Listerine at the time, declined to comment on the suit.

3. Snapchat



Those salacious pics you sent on Snapchat never really disappeared. This year, Snapchat settled with the FTC over claims that the photosharing app misled users to believe photos couldn’t be saved (spoiler alert: saving a photo sent through Snapchat is relatively easy). The FTCalso alleged the company lied about the amount of personal data it was collecting from users.

In a blog post and statement provided to HuffPost, Snapchat said, “While we were focused on building, some things didn’t get the attentionthey could have. One of those was being more precise with how we communicated with the Snapchat community ... Even before [the]consent decree was announced, we had resolved most of those concerns over the past year by improving the wording of our privacy policy,app description, and in-app just-in-time notifications. And we continue to invest heavily in security and countermeasures to prevent abuse.”

4. Naked Juice



Credit: lowercolumbiacollege / Flickr

Last year, the plaintiffs of a class-action lawsuit blasted Naked Juice for using phrases like "100% Fruit," "All Natural,” "All Natural Fruit”and “Non-GMO” on their packaging. Not only were the products not all-natural, the suit alleged, some of Naked Juice’s products were madewith genetically altered soy. Pepsico, which owns Naked Juice, defended its "all natural" claims but acknowledged that some productscontained “an added boost" of synthetic vitamins. The company agreed to pull the “All Natural” labels from the bottle and paid $9 million tosettle the suit. The company left the “Non-GMO” label intact and said it would enlist a third party to confirm the juice’s non-GMO status.

“Our juices and smoothies are made with all-natural fruits and vegetables—with no added sugar and no preservatives,” Pepsico said in astatement posted to Facebook. “In some products, we also include an added boost of vitamins. The ‘all natural’ claim on our label describedthe fruits and vegetables in the bottle -- not the vitamin boosts added to some Naked beverages."

5. Rice Krispies



Credit: bukowsky18 / Flickr

At the height of the 2009 swine flu scare, Kellogg came under fire for splashing “Now Helps Support Your Child’s Immunity” across boxes ofRice Krispies cereal. It also claimed the cereal provided 25 percent of the daily recommended amount of antioxidants and nutrients. Criticsblasted the company for profiting off the H1N1 panic with unsubstantiated scientific claims, and Kellogg pulled the slogan.

“We believed our on-pack communication was straight forward, using peer-reviewed and published research," Kris Charles, a KelloggCompany spokesperson, told HuffPost. "We haven’t used this on-pack communication in nearly 5 years.”

That same year, the Federal Trade Commission took Kellogg to task for claiming its Frosted Mini-Wheats were “clinically shown to improvekids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%.” The FTC forced Kellogg to pull this from cereal boxes, and prohibited the company from "making claimsabout any health benefit of any food unless the claims are backed by scientific evidence and not misleading."

6. Olay



In 2009, British lawmakers called for a ban on ads for Olay’s Definity eye cream. The ads featured former model Twiggy, then 59, with animpossibly smooth visage, completely free of crow's feet. Impossibly smooth was right: Olay admitted to retouching Twiggy’s photos, and theU.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority banned the ads, ruling they might give consumers a "misleading impression of the effect the productcould achieve."

In a statement provided to The Huffington Post, Olay said, "We promptly and voluntarily withdrew the original visual, substituting it with adifferent image which had no such post-production work in the eye area. We have since taken every step to review our processes to ensurewe fully comply with our own high standards to prevent this from happening again."

7. Kashi



This year, Kellogg said it would pull its “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” labels from certain Kashi and Bear Naked products after aclass-action lawsuit disputed the claims on Kashi’s packaging. The suit argued Kashi products use synthetic and processed versions ofingredients like pyridoxine hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, ascorbic acid, sodium phosphate and soy oil, the latter of which isprocessed using hexane, a component of gasoline.

“Kashi and Bear Naked provide comprehensive information about our foods to enable people to make well-informed choices," Kris Charles,Kellogg company spokesperson, said of the suit. "We stand behind our advertising and labeling practices. We will comply with the terms ofthe settlement agreement by the end of the year and will continue to ensure our foods meet our high quality and nutrition standards, whiledelivering the great taste people expect.”

8. Fruit Roll-Ups



Advertise Log In Make HuffPost Your Home Page RSS Careers FAQ

User Agreement Privacy Comment Policy About Us About Our Ads Contact UsArchive

Copyright ©2015 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. "The Huffington Post" is a registered trademark of TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. All rights reserved. 2015©

Part of HuffPost Business - AOL Money & Finance

Conversations

MORE:

A health advocacy group sued General Mills in 2012 over its “Naturally Flavored” “Strawberry” Fruit Roll-Ups, which don't contain eithernatural flavoring or strawberries. The Center for Science in the Public Interest alleged the fruit snack was in fact made with “pears fromconcentrate, corn syrup, dried corn syrup, sugar, partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil,” and less than 2 percent natural ingredients.

A representative for General Mills said, "We disagreed with the plaintiff on the merit of the case, and the substance, but we agreed to resolvethe matter to avoid further litigation. We stand behind our products, and the accuracy of our label."

Listerine Vibram Five Fingers Kashi Ftc Lawsuits Federal Trade Commission Splenda Snapchat Barefoot Running Advertising Health Olay Kellogg's MisleadingAdvertising Google Street View Rice Krispies Skechers Pom Wonderful Barefoot Running Shoes

Huffington Post Search

10/22/15, 5:57 AMHow could Volkswagen be so stupid? (Opinion) - CNN.com

Page 1 of 13http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/opinions/spicer-vokswagen/

How could VW be sostupid? Updated 1:48 PM ET, Thu September 24, 2015By Andre Spicer

Story highlights

Andre Spicer: There is a basic culture incompanies that lets scandals such as VWfiasco happen

Editor's Note: Andre Spicer is a professor of organizationalbehavior at Cass Business School, City University London. Theopinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of theauthor.

3 things you need to know about the Volkswagen scandal 02:20



He says middle managers spare higher-ups ofdetails as they try to meet impossible demands

Spicer: Ignorance is bliss for senior managers --until it blows up in their faces

(CNN)—Volkswagen is one of the smartest automakers in theworld.

It employs tens of thousands of highly qualified engineers. Itsproducts are seen as leading examples of intelligent greentechnology. Its CEO has a Ph.D. in metal physics.

This week, we found out how smart and innovative VW is.

And how insanely stupid.

The company's engineers developed a special technology thatenabled 11 million cars to cheat on emissions tests. Thisbreakthrough meant VW could sell its vehicles as being cleanand green while also cutting corners on costs.

The secret innovation worked for a while. But late last week, theEnvironment Protection Agency exposed the use of this secretpiece of software in some models. VW admitted that 11 millionof its cars were designed to cheat the tests. Shares in thecompany have plunged by a third. The CEO could be gonewithin a few days. Some are talking about the beginning of theend for this mighty German automaker.

Andre Spicer



We don't know all the details of how Volkswagen got itself into this, but we do know that any big firm like VW is underpressure from all directions. Regulators want reduced carbon emissions, customers want cheap but powerful cars,investors want healthy profit, and employees want good wages. Doing all these things at once is hard.

But senior managers of a big firm such as VW often make impossible promises. They learn quickly this is how to keeptheir jobs as well as their big paychecks. If they don't make impossible promises, there is always someone else whocan.

The only catch is that senior executives don't like being stuck with the tricky task of actually delivering on their ownimpossible promises. So they push them on down the line. At VW, they asked the engineers to develop environmentallyfriendly diesel engines. Only a few years ago this would have seemed like a contradiction: Diesel was a dirty technology.Luckily there is not a short supply of ambitious middle managers who are eager to take on such challenges.

Middle managers usually try their best to deliver. But inevitably they find it tough. Why shouldn't they? Most goals set bytheir superiors are impossible in the first place. When results are not forthcoming, senior executives start to get angry.Understandably, middle managers are afraid they might end up being seen as a weak link in the chain. So they quicklylearn to pass only positive stories up the line. Problems are often covered up. When the results look good and the topboss is happy, who cares?

Volkswagen CEO apologizes for cheating emissions test 02:43



Although senior executives might be pleased, problems don't go away on their own. People further down the corporatepecking order often work furiously to find ingenious solutions that allow the company to deliver on many conflictingdemands at the same time. At VW this came in the form of an impressive system that turned on pollution reductionwhen a car was being inspected and turned it off again during normal driving conditions.

Usually top executives have no ideas about these little innovations that let them deliver on their impossible promises.The CEO of VW currently claims he did not know about the suspect technology installed into all cars. Some might thinkthis is hard to believe, as he is a detailed-oriented engineer. But all too often top managers remain blissfully ignorant ofthe dirty little secrets that make things work. Often it is in their best interests not to know what is actually going on.

Now all this has changed at VW. The technology that switches on and off pollution controls doesn't look so smartanymore.

People are asking why such an intelligent company could do something so stupid. The real reason is that sometimes abit of stupidity pays off for everyone -- at least in the short term. But in the longer term, things can go wrong.Sometimes mistakes such as this come with a small price tag. But at VW, it will cost the company dearly.

Ignorance, it seems, is no longer bliss.

Follow Follow @CNNOpinion@CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.

VW using defeat device 'for at least six years' 06:53

10/21/15, 10:53 PMHow Volkswagen Got Away With Diesel Deception - The New York Times

Page 5 of 11http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html?_r=0

International Business

Manage AccountToday's PaperBlogsTimes TopicsTools & ServicesJobsClassifiedsCorrections

More

Advertisement

How

Volkswagen Got AwayWith Diesel Deception

Volkswagen has admitted that 11 million of its diesel cars worldwide were equipped withsoftware that was used to cheat on emissions tests. UPDATED October 15, 2015 Related Article

How Did the System Work?

The software sensed when the car was being tested and then activated equipment thatreduced emissions, United States officials said. But the software turned the equipment offduring regular driving, increasing emissions far above legal limits, possibly to save fuel orto improve the car’s torque and acceleration.

It is not yet known which systems were modified. But experts are focusing on parts of theexhaust system that are designed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that cancause emphysema, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases. RELATED ARTICLE »

Share



Illustration by Guilbert Gates | Source: Volkswagen, The International Council on Clean Transportation

The Emissions Tests That Led

to Discovery of VW’s Cheating

The on-road testing in May 2014 that led the California Air Resources Board to investigateVolkswagen was conducted by researchers at West Virginia University. They testedemissions from two VW models equipped with the 2-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder dieselengine. The researchers found that when tested on the road some cars emitted almost 40times the permitted levels of nitrogen oxides. RELATED ARTICLE »

Exhaust system of a Volkswagen Golf

Volkswagen has used two basic types of technology

to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel

engines, by either trapping the pollutants or treating

them with urea. The first type is shown here.

Main computer

Engine control module

Diesel oxidationcatalytic converter

MufflerOxygen sensor

Oxygen sensor

H2S catalyticconverter

Diesel particulate filterExhaust valveTemperature

sensors

Nitrogen oxide trap

This system traps nitrogen oxides, reducing toxic

emissions. But the engine must regularly use more

fuel to allow the trap to work. The car’s computer

could save fuel by allowing more pollutants to pass

through the exhaust system. Saving fuel is one

potential reason that Volkswagen’s software could

have been altered to make 11 million cars pollute

more, according to researchers at The International

Council on Clean Transportation.



Source: Arvind Thiruvengadam, Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions at West Virginia University

Which Cars Are Affected?

The Environmental Protection Agency has said it will order Volkswagen to recall seven ofits American car models with the affected engine type, for a total of about 500,000 vehicles.Volkswagen has not released a list of international models that have the same engine.

Average emissions of nitrogen oxides in on-road testing

GRAMS OF NITROGEN OXIDES PER KILOMETER

2011 Volkswagen Jetta 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

15 times limitHIGHWAY

25 timesURBAN (LOS ANGELES)

37 timesURBAN (SAN DIEGO)

38 timesRURAL (UP AND DOWNHILL)

2012 Volkswagen Passat

9 times limitHIGHWAY

20 timesURBAN (LOS ANGELES)

17 timesURBAN (SAN DIEGO)

17 timesRURAL (UP AND DOWNHILL)

U.S. limit

.04 grams/kilometer

Jetta

2009 to 2015 Beetle and Beetle Convertible

2012 to 2015 Passat

2012 to 2015

A3

2010 to 2015 Jetta SportWagen

2009 to 2014 Golf

2010 to 2015

VOLKSWAGEN VOLKSWAGEN VOLKSWAGEN

AUDI VOLKSWAGEN VOLKSWAGEN



Illustrations by Derek Watkins | Source: Environmental Protection Agency

When Will the Cars Get Fixed?

Germany’s automobile regulator has ordered Volkswagen to recall 2.4 million of its diesel-powered vehicles starting in 2016. The regulator, known by its German initials K.B.A.,expects Volkswagen to present a software fix for vehicles with 2-liter engines involved inthe recall by the end of the month, and solutions for 1.2- and 1.6-liter engines by the end ofNovember.

In the United States, consumers may have to wait more than a year. Many of the vehicleswill require both a hardware and software change, a major repair that may consume as manyas 10 hours of work per car. The work might not get started until next year.

What Is at Stake for the Company?

Volkswagen now sells as many cars as Toyota. But its future is uncertain as it has haltedsales of the affected cars in the United States and its value has plummeted. It is likely to losesome American customers, who bought more of the diesels in the Pacific Northwest and theNortheast. The automaker has said it would set aside 6.5 billion euros, or about $7.3 billion,to cover the cost of bringing vehicles with illegal software into compliance with emissionsstandards. But the company has indicated the total cost will be more and layoffs could bepossible.

Golf SportWagen

2015

VOLKSWAGEN



Sources: Euromonitor International/JATO Dynamics; Reuters; Kelley Blue Book

What Is the Status of the Investigations?

The Environmental Protection Agency is working with the Justice Department to determinewhat penalties the company will face for the emissions deception. Both the House andSenate are also looking into the matter, along with most states.

Acting on complaints filed by several citizens, as well as officials at Volkswagen,prosecutors in Germany have begun a preliminary investigation against employees, whohave not been identified, on suspicion of fraud. Authorities in the country recently searchedVolkswagen’s Wolfsburg headquarters and some private homes, securing documents andhard drives they believe may contain evidence.

Related Coverage

12 million $40

Sept. 17$38.03Worldwide annual car sales

Toyota10

Volkswagen 30 Oct. 8$26.778 G.M.

Volkswagen

stock priceHyundai6 20

Ford

4

10

2

American depositoryreceipts, daily closesLight vehicles

0 0

Sept. ’15 Oct.’09 ’14

Diesel Volkswagens registered in the United States

New registrations per 1,000 of all cars registered from Jan. 2009 to June 2015

0 4 7 10 14

12.6 10.312.4

10.013.5

7.79.17.1 8.6

9.6

8.6 7.8

10/21/15, 10:53 PMRegulators Investigating 2nd VW Computer Program on Emissions - The New York Times

Page 1 of 5http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-congressional-hearing.html

http://nyti.ms/1GxZCfd

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

Regulators Investigating 2nd VW ComputerProgram on EmissionsBy DANIELLE IVORY and KEITH BRADSHER OCT. 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — Federal and California regulators have begun an investigationinto a second computer program in Volkswagen’s diesel cars that also affects theoperation of the cars’ emission controls.

Volkswagen said that it had withdrawn 2016 models of its diesel cars fromenvironmental certification in the United States because the company should havedisclosed the software and sought regulators’ approval, but had not done so.

The disclosure of the software was made in testimony by the head ofVolkswagen’s American unit, Michael Horn, before a House Energy and Commercesubcommittee hearing, and later confirmed by the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the California Air Resources Board.

The software qualifies under state and federal laws as a so-called auxiliaryemissions control device — something that modifies the performance of emissionsequipment. Volkswagen and regulators declined to say whether this software wasintended to defeat emissions control tests, like the software that the automakeralready admitted last month that it had installed in 11 million diesel cars since the



2009 model year.

“VW did very recently provide E.P.A. with very preliminary information on anauxiliary emissions control device that VW said was included in one or more modelyears,” said Nick Conger, an agency spokesman. He added that federal andCalifornia regulators “are investigating the nature and purpose of this recentlyidentified device.”

Volkswagen is already struggling with the spiraling cost and growing damageto its image from last month’s revelation that it had installed software to detectwhen a car was undergoing an emissions test and minimize harmful emissions.When not being tested, the cars would emit up to 40 times the allowable levels ofpollution.

Volkswagen and regulators refrained from characterizing the second softwareprogram in any way. The automaker gave no indication of whether it was alsodevised to defeat emissions tests.

“In Volkswagen Group of America’s recent discussions with the regulators, wedescribed to the E.P.A. and C.A.R.B. that our emissions control strategy alsoincluded a software feature that should be disclosed to and approved by them,” theautomaker said.

Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said thestate agency was investigating the nature of the second device, but declined toprovide specifics because Volkswagen’s application “is still pending.” Mr. Youngsaid that while Volkswagen has withdrawn its 2016 application with federalregulators, it has not withdrawn the similar application filed with Californiaregulators.

“We’re still going through all the information they provided and determiningthe next step,” he said.

Under normal circumstances, automakers are allowed to use the auxiliaryemissions control devices under deals negotiated with regulators that provide for



higher emissions in very specific circumstances (like going up a steep hill, or invery cold weather). But they must be disclosed.

Mr. Young said he could not comment on exactly when Volkswagen disclosedthe existence of its auxiliary emissions control device, or A.E.C.D.

“What we don’t know yet is if the 2016 A.E.C.D. is also a defeat device, or is adevice that meets the guidance previously given by E.P.A.,” said John German, asenior fellow specializing in emissions and efficiency technology at theInternational Council on Clean Transportation, the nonprofit group that firstnoticed that the real-world emissions of Volkswagen diesels in the United Stateswere far above regulatory limits.

Federal regulators warned manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks in 1998 that itwould strictly scrutinize any devices that interfered with the normal operation ofemissions control equipment, after finding that they had installed systems similarto what Volkswagen disclosed last month in its diesel cars.

Dan Becker, the director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for AutoSafety, a nonprofit Washington research group, said that Volkswagen’s newadmission was a potential violation of the law.

“They put it in their vehicles, and then they signed a certification petition tothe regulator saying what they put in their vehicles and didn’t mention it,” he said.“It’s certainly a material omission.”

Lawmakers did not discuss Volkswagen’s admission at length during thehearing. But Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, openlywondered if Volkswagen was skirting regulations in other ways. “If they werewilling to cut corners here, what else have they done?” he asked.

In addition to disclosing the second investigation in his opening testimony,Mr. Horn of Volkswagen laid out the automaker’s plans to fix the cars currentlyaffected and cautioned the panel that owners might have to wait a year or two.



Most of the more than 480,000 affected cars in the United States will need a“major fix,” he said, including a hardware and software change. That repair, whichwould be applicable to almost 70 percent of those vehicles, may consume as muchas 10 hours of work per car and might not get started until next year. Theremaining vehicles are expected to be fixed next year, he said.

“This is pretty shocking for people,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, aDemocrat of Illinois, expressing dismay at the scandal and demanding a specifictimeline for fixes. “Asking customers for patience is really just not sufficient.”

Some lawmakers asked Mr. Horn why Volkswagen did not replace the vehicles— a costly proposition — and, although he emphasized repairs, he said Volkswagenmight consider an option like a buyback.

“Our plan is not to buy back the inventory,” he said. “Our plan is to fix thecars.”

Although Mr. Horn apologized for the deception and even said he felt deceivedby the scandal, he came under withering criticism for not delivering a concretedeadline for fixing most of the cars, and not providing more details about how thescheme was conceived or who was responsible.

In response to questioning by Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas,Mr. Horn said that neither Volkswagen’s supervisory board nor its top executivesordered the emissions deception. Instead, he attributed the decision to “a couple ofsoftware engineers who put this in for whatever reason.”

After an incredulous Mr. Barton expressed doubts that top Volkswagenexecutives in Germany were unaware of the cheating before September, Mr. Horndid not argue.

“I agree it is very hard to believe,” he said.

“This was not a corporate decision,” Mr. Horn said. “This was somethingindividuals did.” His comments echoed recent statements by Volkswagen’s new



chief executive, Matthias Müller, who said that only a few employees at thecompany had been aware of the cheating.

Also on Thursday, German investigators searched Volkswagen’s headquartersin Wolfsburg, Germany, and elsewhere. State prosecutors in Braunschweig said ina statement that they were looking for documents and data storage that would givethem clues as to who might have been responsible for the decision to install thesoftware that led to the emissions cheating.

Mr. Horn deflected demands by the House subcommittee for moreinformation. He told lawmakers that, as the chief of Volkswagen’s American unit,he could not make promises for Volkswagen headquarters to turn over documents.He noted that there were “quite a number of people above me.”

Volkswagen has been asked to turn over documents to the committee byTuesday.

In addition to Mr. Horn, two officials from the E.P.A. testified before the panelon Thursday, to a less hostile reception. One of them, Christopher Grundler,director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, acknowledged that theagency had failed to detect the cheating in the first place — it was found by theInternational Council on Clean Transportation in conjunction with a laboratory atWest Virginia University.

“We’ve learned from this episode, for sure,” he said. “We wish we had found itsooner.”

Danielle Ivory reported from Washington and Keith Bradsher from New York. Aaron M.Kessler contributed reporting from Washington and Melissa Eddy from Wolfsburg,Germany.

A version of this article appears in print on October 9, 2015, on page B1 of the New York edition with theheadline: Regulators Investigating 2nd VW Emissions Program.

© 2015 The New York Times Company

has volkswagen defrauded you?€¦ · 2009-2015 volkswagen golf 2009-2015 volkswagen passat...

Documents