A class action lawsuit alleging defective braking systems in 2023 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport SUVs moved forward last month after a federal judge denied the automaker’s attempt to force the case into arbitration. The March 30 ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey keeps the proposed class action, Zats et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, on track for further proceedings.
Highlights
- A New Jersey federal judge denied Jaguar Land Rover’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action over premature brake wear in 2023 Range Rover and Range Rover Sport models
- Three named plaintiffs report brake pad and rotor replacements costing $1,991 to $2,509 at mileages as low as 11,938 miles
- The lawsuit alleges excessive heat generation causes accelerated wear to pads, rotors, and related components
- Multiple NHTSA technical service bulletins document dealer-reported brake complaints across the affected models
Premature Wear Allegations
The lawsuit centers on allegations that the braking systems in 2023 Range Rover models generate excessive heat, causing brake pads, rotors, and other components to wear out far sooner than expected. Owners report symptoms including squealing, grinding, and vibration under braking.
Three plaintiffs from New York, California, and Illinois detail out-of-pocket repair costs despite what they argue should have been warranty-covered replacements. New York plaintiff Boris Zats paid $2,476 after 14,825 miles. California plaintiff Amir Gupta paid $2,509 after 16,601 miles. Illinois plaintiff Frank Ruffolo replaced brakes on two Range Rovers at 11,938 and 13,866 miles, paying $1,991 and $2,107 respectively.
The complaint references six NHTSA technical service bulletins issued between 2022 and 2025 that address dealer reports of grinding, groaning, squealing, and vibration during braking in Range Rover models.
Arbitration Ruling
Jaguar Land Rover argued that all three plaintiffs agreed to binding arbitration through clauses in the new vehicle limited warranty booklets. The plaintiffs countered that they were never informed the clauses existed and did not review the warranty materials at purchase.
Judge Claire C. Cecchi denied the motion without prejudice, ruling that a genuine dispute exists over whether the owners actually consented to arbitration. The court ordered limited discovery on the arbitrability question before JLR can refile.
The ruling follows a pattern seen in other recent brake defect class actions where manufacturers have sought to redirect litigation through arbitration provisions. No formal recall has been issued in connection with the allegations.
The class currently covers owners in California, Illinois, and New York. The plaintiffs are represented by Philadelphia-based Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, P.C.
Subscribe Today!
Sign up for our weekly eNewsletter and get a free copy of our quarterly digital magazine.
