Hyundai Motor America and Kia faced a wave of thefts after it became widely known that many 2011–2022 models lacked an engine immobilizer—an anti-theft feature that helps prevent a car from starting without the correct coded key. In many vehicles, thieves could exploit the absence of this technology to steal or attempt to steal cars more easily, leaving owners with stolen vehicles, broken windows and steering columns, higher insurance costs, and other out-of-pocket losses. The $145 million settlement centers on these allegations and offers a mix of remedies, including anti-theft software upgrades for certain vehicles, reimbursements for steering-wheel locks or other aftermarket devices, and compensation tied to theft-related damage, deductibles, and total losses, with claims generally requiring proof and a filing deadline of April 28, 2025. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs argued the vehicles were sold without what they viewed as reasonable, modern theft deterrence, making them disproportionately vulnerable and shifting the financial burden of that vulnerability onto consumers. Its significance is both practical and symbolic: it sets a large-dollar benchmark for how automakers may be pushed to address security-related design choices after sale, and it links compensation not only to actual thefts but also to preventative fixes (like software updates) and related consumer expenses. It also underscores how quickly an exploitable weakness can cascade into community-wide harms—spiking theft rates in some areas and influencing insurer behavior and premiums—when a popular set of models shares a common security gap. Broader implications extend across the auto industry as vehicles increasingly rely on a mix of mechanical locks, electronic authentication, and software-based protections, with security lapses now spreading via social media in ways that resemble “mass scale” vulnerabilities. Similar claims have been brought against both Hyundai and Kia in related theft litigation, and the outcomes have drawn attention to how baseline anti-theft practices vary by model year and market, even when the underlying technology is widely available. While federal vehicle safety rules are primarily overseen by NHTSA and focus heavily on crashworthiness, theft deterrence has long been shaped by a combination of manufacturer design choices, insurance-industry expectations, and state consumer-protection laws—this settlement reflects how, in that regulatory and market mix, civil litigation can become the mechanism that forces faster security retrofits and consumer reimbursement when a design is alleged to have fallen short of reasonable anti-theft standards.