1. Defend EV battery claims with technical rigor: Battery fire litigation blends product defect, failure-to-warn, human factors, and economic loss theories. Root-cause analysis, pack design documentation, service history, and battery management data are critical to defense.
2. Standardize the defense of ADAS defect theories: ADAS and autonomy risk is stabilizing, not disappearing. While concern has eased, AV and ADAS liability remains a top exposure. The key question is whether these cases settle into routine defect litigation with repeatable defense playbooks or continue to test new legal ground.
3. Defend data privacy through regulatory readiness: Data privacy risk is shifting from courts to regulators. Declining concern over privacy and cybersecurity class actions points to a regulatory, not litigation‑driven, risk profile. Compliance documentation and response readiness now matter just as much as class‑action defense.

Litigation priorities beyond supply chain disputes highlight potential growing exposure from alleged product failure lawsuits and regulatory enforcement. Survey respondents continue to rank autonomous and ADAS product liability as a significant area of concern (47%), down 15 percentage points from 62% last year, making it the second‑highest concern overall. The main question is: will these cases evolve from novel defect theories to routine litigation with established defense strategies? 

Reported concern regarding connected vehicle data privacy and cybersecurity class actions declined to 41%, down from 56% last year. This decrease suggests that respondents may view data privacy risk as less litigation‑driven than in prior years. Instead, data privacy appears increasingly associated with regulatory oversight rather than private class action exposure. 

EV battery fire litigation accounts for 39% of survey responses, making it one of the most frequently cited litigation areas, while EV range and performance litigation registers just 15%, down 12 percentage points from last year. EV consumers are likely more aware of their vehicle’s range and the impact of cold weather on battery performance, which may explain the decline in survey responses related to range and performance litigation. EV battery fires, on the other hand, are the issue du jour for the media. These fires are known to produce intense heat and large amounts of smoke, which may result in more widespread property damage than their ICE counterparts. Moreover, EV battery investigations often require additional time and expertise, thereby increasing defense costs. 

Employment litigation tied to layoffs (10%) registers minimal concern despite industry restructuring, suggesting that this exposure is overshadowed by larger threats. Counterfeit parts dispute concerns (13%) remain modest, possibly because enforcement occurs through customs seizures and administrative proceedings rather than traditional litigation.

Survey respondents continue to express elevated concern regarding supply‑chain litigation (61%), reflecting issues extending beyond traditional recall cost recovery. These concerns now include tariff and other contract disputes, financial distress problems, and termination‑related matters.

Contract disputes remain the most visible flashpoint. These disputes continue to proliferate, increasingly involving disagreements over pricing adjustments, tariff responsibility, and tariff‑related cost recovery. In particular, questions concerning tariff refund entitlement when tariffs are imposed and later challenged. Beyond pricing and tariff-related disputes, claims involving obsolescence costs and termination rights arising from program cancellations have become more prevalent. At the same time, challenges to requirements contracts remain a recurring feature of supply chain litigation.

These legal disputes are unfolding amid increased financial stress across the automotive supply chain. Manufacturers and suppliers alike can face margin pressure and tightening liquidity, driven by a combination of cost inflation, fluctuating production volumes, and tariff‑related obligations. As a result, supply‑chain participants are increasingly reexamining contractual assumptions tied to capacity, pricing, and long‑term commitments.

Warranty and recall indemnification battles further add to these supply chain legal disputes. These claims tend to escalate when component quality issues lead to recalls; these legal disputes may escalate quickly given the scope of contractual cost‑recovery and indemnification. For example, in battery‑related recalls, disputes often center on the extent of supplier indemnity, responsibility for customer notifications, dealer reimbursement, and diminished‑value claims. Fault allocation also remains a frequent point of contention, with companies disputing whether the claimed failures stem from product design, system integration, or manufacturing performance.

Taken together, these trends suggest that supply‑chain disputes are evolving as long‑standing contracts meet changing economic and regulatory conditions. Many agreements continue to operate as intended, but tariffs, cost pressures, and program shifts are prompting closer scrutiny of pricing, risk allocation, and termination provisions. For manufacturers and suppliers alike, thoughtful contract management and early engagement can often shape outcomes and help contain disputes before they escalate.