Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), now part of Stellantis, faced a class action over alleged defects in the steering and front suspension of certain 2018–2020 Jeep Wrangler and 2020 Jeep Gladiator vehicles—problems owners say could trigger pronounced shaking at highway speeds on bumpy roads (often described as “death wobble”). The issue drew heightened attention because FCA issued a safety recall tied to the steering/suspension system, and recalls matter not just for convenience but because they implicate vehicle control and crash risk. In the auto industry, manufacturers must comply with federal safety standards and, when a defect relates to motor vehicle safety, notify owners and provide a remedy under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with oversight by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The lawsuit (Reynolds, et al. v. FCA US LLC, E.D. Mich.) was filed because plaintiffs claimed they were financially harmed—paying out-of-pocket for repairs or suffering diminished vehicle value—despite the defect being linked to a recall. FCA denied wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement that is notable for being a “$0” consumer settlement in the sense that it primarily provides non-cash relief: an extended warranty (up to 8 years/90,000 miles) covering repairs associated with a failed front suspension steering damper, plus reimbursement for qualifying past replacements with proof of payment. That structure is significant because it shifts the practical benefit from one-time payouts to longer-term coverage, and it can reduce future repair disputes while still leaving the core question—whether the vehicles were defective at sale—unresolved in court. More broadly, this case fits a common pattern in automotive defect class actions where a recall exists but owners allege the recall remedy is incomplete, the defect manifests outside the recall parameters, or consumers already paid before a fix was offered. Similar litigation across the industry often ends with warranty extensions, reimbursement programs, or revised recall campaigns, reflecting how courts and companies balance individualized repair histories against the efficiency of standardized relief. The settlement also underscores how safety recalls, consumer-protection theories (like economic loss and diminished value), and the realities of complex suspension/steering diagnostics intersect—especially when a symptom can be intermittent, hard to reproduce, and expensive to address without clear coverage.