Subaru’s EyeSight is an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) that uses forward-facing cameras and, in some models, rear sonar sensors to support features like automatic emergency braking (pre-collision braking), rear automatic braking, and lane keep assist. As these systems became common across 2013–2024 Subaru model years—including Legacy, Outback, Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Ascent, WRX, and BRZ—drivers increasingly relied on them as safety aids, even though they’re not full self-driving technology. The lawsuit centers on claims that, in certain VIN-specific vehicles, EyeSight components such as the camera assembly and/or rear sonar sensors could malfunction or fail in ways that undermine these safety features and lead owners to pay for diagnosis and repairs out of pocket. The class action was filed to resolve allegations that Subaru sold or leased vehicles with defective or deficient braking and lane-assist performance and did not provide adequate warranty relief when failures occurred. Without Subaru admitting wrongdoing, the settlement—granted final approval on Nov. 5, 2025—offers two main benefits: a warranty extension that covers 75% of a “covered repair” at authorized Subaru retailers for up to four years/48,000 miles (with a shorter extension for warranties that expired earlier), and reimbursement of 75% of one qualifying past repair invoice completed before July 29, 2025. Its significance is practical: it shifts a large portion of repair costs for confirmed EyeSight failures back to the manufacturer, sets documentation standards for claims (VIN verification, itemized invoices, proof of payment), and illustrates how class actions can function as a consumer remedy even when a formal safety recall isn’t part of the outcome. More broadly, the case fits a growing pattern of litigation and regulatory scrutiny around ADAS reliability, marketing, and repair costs as camera- and sensor-based systems become ubiquitous and expensive to service. Automakers operate in a landscape shaped by federal vehicle safety oversight (including NHTSA’s defect investigations and recall authority), industry safety standards and testing expectations, and state consumer-protection and warranty laws that often underpin “defect” claims when a widespread issue is alleged. Similar disputes across the industry frequently focus on whether intermittent sensor or calibration failures meaningfully reduce safety performance, how manufacturers communicate system limitations, and whether warranty coverage keeps pace with the real-world costs of diagnosing and replacing integrated camera and radar/sonar assemblies.