Recalls & Settlements Named Nissan Recalls and Class Actions Behind These Claims
Owner complaints about Nissan defects are not just anecdotal. Several are documented in federal court settlements and open safety recalls, and that public record often lines up with what California owners bring to us.
The CVT trouble has produced three separate class action settlements, all in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Stringer v. Nissan North America (Case No. 3:21-cv-00099) resolved claims over the CVT in the 2014-2018 Rogue, 2015-2018 Pathfinder, and 2015-2018 Infiniti QX60, and Nissan agreed to a settlement valued at 277.7 million dollars with warranty extensions and repair reimbursement. Gann v. Nissan North America (Case No. 3:18-cv-00966) covered the 2013-2016 Altima and won final approval in March 2020. Weckwerth v. Nissan North America (Case No. 3:18-cv-00588), approved the same month, covered the 2012-2017 Versa, 2013-2017 Sentra, and 2014-2017 Versa Note. Those cases confirm the shudder, hesitation, and premature failure Nissan CVT owners describe for years.
A settlement is not the same as a lemon law remedy, and that distinction matters. A CVT warranty extension buys you more repairs; it does not get you out of a car the dealer still cannot fix. If your Nissan keeps going back for the same transmission fault, the Song-Beverly Act can require Nissan to repurchase or replace it regardless of whether a class settlement also applied.
Nissan also has a current safety recall worth flagging. In 2025 the company issued recall 25V437000, covering the 2021-2024 Rogue, 2019-2020 Altima, and the 2019-2022 Infiniti QX50 and 2022 QX55 built with the 1.5-liter three-cylinder or 2.0-liter four-cylinder VC-Turbo engine. A manufacturing defect in certain engine bearings can lead to engine failure, and a bearing that breaks the block can spill hot oil and start a fire. Owner letters went out in early 2026. You can look up your VIN against this and every other campaign at nhtsa.gov. A recall repair that does not hold, or an engine that fails again after the fix, is exactly the repeated-repair pattern a lemon law claim is built on.