Nissan CVT Transmission Settlement Up to 5000 for Rogue Pathfinder Infiniti QX60 Owners

The Nissan CVT Transmission Settlement Up to 5000 for Rogue Pathfinder Infiniti QX60 Owners settlement, with individual payouts of TBD to eligible claimants who owned or leased a covered vehicle. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: No deadline specified
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Proof is required. Claimants should be prepared to provide documents showing they owned or leased a covered vehicle (e.g., registration, title, lease/finance paperwork) and any materials needed to support the claimed benefits (such as service/repair records and related receipts) as applicable.
Settlement Summary
Nissan’s continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) have long been marketed as improving fuel economy and providing smoother acceleration, but the design has also drawn widespread consumer complaints about shuddering, slipping, delayed response, overheating, and premature failure—problems that can be expensive because CVTs are complex and often replaced as whole units rather than repaired. The class action settlement referenced applies to certain model years of the Nissan Rogue (2014–2018), Nissan Pathfinder (2015–2018), and Infiniti QX60 (2015–2018), offering eligible owners and lessees reimbursements that can reach up to $5,000, typically depending on documented repair costs and other requirements, with deadlines that vary by claim type. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged that the vehicles’ CVTs were defective and that consumers were stuck with unexpected repair bills, diminished vehicle value, and safety concerns tied to loss of power or erratic performance. Its significance is twofold: it can offset out-of-pocket costs for affected drivers and it pressures automakers to address recurring drivetrain issues through extended warranties, reimbursements, or improved disclosures, even without an admission of wrongdoing. More broadly, CVT-related litigation has appeared across the industry when high repair costs intersect with allegations of known defects, and these disputes sit alongside regulatory expectations that manufacturers remedy safety-related defects through National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recalls and technical service bulletins—while many drivability and durability complaints fall into the murkier realm of warranty law, consumer-protection statutes, and class actions that attempt to fill gaps when problems are widespread but not formally deemed safety defects.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Owned or leased a covered vehicle
- Vehicle is a 2014–2018 Nissan Rogue, 2015–2018 Nissan Pathfinder, or 2015–2018 Infiniti QX60
- Submit a claim by the deadline that applies to your situation (deadline varies)
- Provide required proof/documentation as part of the claim
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
