Apparently, the cupholders can't get wet.
BMW faces a massive class-action lawsuit because the X7's cupholders are defective.
Now, we know what you're thinking. How could somebody sue a large company like BMW for defective cupholders? They literally only have one job, which is to hold cups.
As it turns out, the plaintiff, BrightK Consulting, alleges that the cupholders don't do their job because they weren't designed to hold cups that contain liquid. BrightK Consulting is suing BMW and nine other unknown defendants for fraud and deceit, breach of warranty, negligence, the California consumer legal remedies act violation, and five additional related charges.
BMW is also facing a large lawsuit in Germany for not agreeing to kill internal combustion by 2030.
According to the lawsuit, "The cupholders in the Class Vehicles are designed defectively because they are not designed, nor intended, to actually hold cups filled with liquid. When liquid spills into the cupholder, the wires for the SRS (airbag) control module, which sits directly underneath the cupholder, get wet and are damaged, causing damage to the airbags. As a result, the airbags can inadvertently deploy."
This lawsuit has the potential to be huge, as it likely affects every X7 ever produced. Though nobody has been harmed yet, we found several complaints about this issue online.
The car directly related to the lawsuit is owned by Fang Lin. It's a 2020 BMW X7 M50i, purchased new in December 2019.
In April 2021, the vehicle was returned to BMW because the sun visor locking bar and the left rear door edge seal came loose. The car has 7,500 miles on it, and it spent two days at the dealership. In July, the vehicle warned the owner about a malfunctioning airbag system.
"Defendant, through its authorized dealers, was unable and/or failed to repair the Subject Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiff justifiably lost confidence in the Subject Vehicle's reliability and said defects have substantially impaired the use, value, and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff," states the document.
"As a result of said defects, Plaintiff revoked acceptance of the Subject Vehicle in writing on September 23, 2021. At the time of revocation, the Subject Vehicle was in substantially the same condition as at delivery except for damage caused by its own defects and ordinary wear and tear," states the document.
BMW has chosen not to accept the plaintiff's demand for revocation, but that's possibly not BMW's biggest problem.
The lawsuit also alleges that BMW knew about the problem due to several similar complaints noted in the lawsuit. "Knowing the truth and motivated by profit and market share, Defendant BMW has knowingly and willfully engaged in the acts and/or omissions to mislead and/or deceive Plaintiff and others similarly situated," states the document.
BMW has yet to comment on the situation. Last year a BMW owner sued the company over a defective X5 hybrid battery. No other customers were involved in that lawsuits, however.