Sixth Circuit Revives Lawsuit Over Kia and Hyundai Anti-Theft Flaws

For years, the car manufacturers Kia and Hyundai made millions of vehicles that, according to growing numbers of lawsuits, were simply too easy to steal. Between 2011 and 2021, these companies sold cars without a critical anti-theft feature called an engine immobilizer, a device that prevents a vehicle from starting unless it recognizes the correct key (or key fob).

This missing piece of safety technology, combined with simple ignition systems that could be activated with nothing more than a USB cable or pliers, made the cars a favorite target for thieves. So much so, in fact, that social media challenges like the notorious “Kia Boyz” trend popped up, showing teens how to steal these cars in under 90 seconds. Car thefts skyrocketed, and tragically, so did the number of injuries and deaths attributed to reckless joyrides in stolen Kias and Hyundais. Two families decided to fight back through the court system.

These cases sparked a national conversation

The first case involves the family of Matthew Moshi, a man who died after a stolen Kia slammed into his vehicle. The second involves Donald Strench, who was seriously injured after a similar incident with a stolen Hyundai. In both cases, the vehicles had been stolen by teenagers and used in dangerous high-speed joyrides.

However, the families didn’t sue the teen drivers. Instead, they went after the car companies. Their legal claim is straightforward: that these deaths and injuries could have been prevented if the vehicles had been designed properly and included basic theft deterrents like immobilizers, devices that were already standard in the industry.

The families filed their lawsuits under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), which is a state law that allows injured parties to hold manufacturers accountable when their defective products cause harm. The families argued that the design of the cars was defective, that the companies failed to warn consumers of the risk, and that the companies made misleading representations about the safety of their vehicles.

Initially, a lower court dismissed their claims, stating that the harm caused by the teen thieves was too far removed from the carmakers’ conduct. In legal terms, this is known as a problem of proximate cause. This is the idea that an injury must be closely connected to a defendant’s actions to hold them legally responsible.

However, on September 16, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in.

What did the court decide?

The appellate court didn’t agree with the lower court’s decision to entirely throw out the case. Instead, the appellate court recognized the role that manufacturers play in public safety.

Per the Sixth Circuit, it was too early to determine whether Kia and Hyundai should be held responsible. The families presented enough evidence to suggest that the companies knew (or should have known) that their designs made theft more likely, and that stolen cars often lead to crashes, injuries, and deaths.

The court stated that the lack of engine immobilizers wasn’t a harmless oversight. By the mid-2010s, the vast majority of car manufacturers made engine immobilizers standard. Federal safety regulators and insurance industry data had already begun showing that vehicles without this technology were significantly more likely to be stolen. And, when a stolen car gets into a crash, the results are often deadly.

Given all of this, the court ruled that the families should be allowed to move forward with their claims of design defects and failure to warn. These two parts of the lawsuit will now be allowed to proceed through the legal process, including gathering evidence and possibly a trial.

Not all of the families’ claims survived, however. The court agreed that the manufacturing defect allegations didn’t hold up, since the families weren’t stating that a particular car was broken or made incorrectly, just that the entire product line was designed badly. Their claim that the companies misrepresented their cars also failed, because the plaintiffs hadn’t pointed to any specific promises or advertising that consumers relied on when buying the cars. Still, though, the decision is a big win.

Why does this ruling matter?

This ruling doesn’t just breathe new life into the Moshi and Strench lawsuits. It also raises important questions about how we hold companies accountable for safety. For decades, courts in Ohio (and in many other states) have leaned towards protecting vehicle owners from liability once a car is stolen. In earlier cases, courts ruled that car owners couldn’t be blamed if someone else stole their car and then crashed and caused someone to suffer injuries – even if the owner left their keys in the ignition. The idea was that the thief’s actions were too far removed and too unpredictable to make the owner legally responsible.

Kia and Hyundai tried to use this same logic in the case. They argued that they shouldn’t be held liable for what a teen thief did after stealing a car, just like a car owner wouldn’t be. However, the Sixth Circuit Court drew a line. They stated that car owners aren’t the same as car manufacturers, and when a company designs and sells a product to the public, it has a much greater duty to think ahead and prevent foreseeable problems. That’s the word that really matters here: foreseeable.

The court said that there is enough evidence showing the car companies could have predicted that their design choices would make theft more likely, and that thefts often lead to serious harm. As such, a jury (not a judge) should decide whether the companies are liable. This could impact future product liability claims. It may open the door for other lawsuits where harm was not caused directly by the product itself, but by what people were able to do because of the product’s unsafe design.

What happens now?

The plaintiffs will get a chance to dig deeper into Kia and Hyundai’s internal documents now that the case is moving forward. They can look at what engineers and executives knew about the theft risks, what decisions were made about anti-theft technology, and whether any warnings were considered but not issued.

The car companies will almost certainly try to defend themselves by stating that the risks weren’t as obvious as the plaintiffs claim, or that the teen drivers acted in such a reckless way that no design feature could have prevented the harm done. These are the kinds of arguments that will play out during the next stages of the case, possibly in front of a jury.

It’s important to remember that the court did not say that Kia and Hyundai are automatically liable. This isn’t a final judgment, and the plaintiffs still have a long road ahead. However, what the court did say is that the families do deserve their day in court, and the car companies don’t get to walk away before that day comes.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a stolen vehicle, this ruling could matter more than you think. Most people think they have no recourse beyond going after the thief, but the thief may be a teenager, may have no insurance, or may not even be caught. Holding the car manufacturer responsible may be the only path toward justice.

This decision shows that the law is always evolving. Courts are starting to understand that design choices matter, and that when a company sells a product that creates a predictable public safety risk, it could be held responsible for the consequences. It also sends a message to the auto industry that safety isn’t just about airbags and crash test ratings. It’s also about preventing your product from being used in dangerous ways, especially when those dangers are well known.

At Hickey Law Firm, we believe that safety is no accident. When companies cut corners or ignore warnings to save money, it’s real people who pay the price. We’re closely watching how this case unfolds, because it could influence lawsuits across the country, including here in Florida. If you or a loved one suffered injury in a crash involving a stolen vehicle, or you believe a dangerous product design contributed to your injury, we want to help. Our team has decades of experience handling complex product liability and car accident cases. We dig deep, fight hard, and put our clients first. You don’t have to go through this alone. Call or fill out our contact form today for a free consultation. Let us help you understand your legal rights and determine if you may have a case.