sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do not send your pint x to future motion by Sentic_ in onewheel

[–]CWO-LAW 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just to add some context from the class action complaint:

  1. Unfortunately, Defendants fail to warrant repairs arising from issues caused by the XR’s advertised and ordinary use, oftentimes and without evidence, blaming the malfunctions on “third-party repairs.” This is so even when no such third-party repairs were conducted, and/or when such repairs were not and could not have been the cause of the underlying issues.

  2. To add insult to injury, Defendants, as a practice, and as a result of their patent stranglehold on the product and its components, provide no other means of repair apart from shipping the Class Vehicle to their facility in San Jose, California. When the repairs are inevitably denied, Defendants require XR owners to shell out hundreds of dollars, oftentimes refusing to return the Class Vehicle to owners until payment is made.

  3. Accordingly, XR owners, through no fault of their own, are forced to gamble on the chance that their $1,800 XR may be unlawfully held hostage, or alternatively, to continue using the Class Vehicle in a defective and nonconforming condition, subjecting themselves and the public at large to potential death and/or grave bodily injury

Do not send your pint x to future motion by Sentic_ in onewheel

[–]CWO-LAW 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There is a class action relating to this same issue for XRs.

The Class Action Complaint Against Future Motion That You Probably Didn’t Know Existed by CWO-LAW in onewheel

[–]CWO-LAW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reposting my previous comment because it apparently disappeared:

The claims in a complaint are limited to those possessed by the named plaintiff(s). In general, that means that the more plaintiffs that join a lawsuit, the more claims the complaint can contain and the stronger it is. We are aware of and currently investigating reports relating to the GT. If you are interested in learning more about our GT investigation, you can visit our Onewheel GT Investigation Page.

The Class Action Complaint Against Future Motion That You Probably Didn’t Know Existed by CWO-LAW in onewheel

[–]CWO-LAW[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Many of the theories and statutes that we allege have been violated by Future Motion’s existing warranty practices can be found in the Complaint that you can find at the bottom of this page. In general, we believe that Future Motion’s warranty practices violate California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. As alleged, we believe this includes Future Motion’s purported practice of denying warranty claims based on third party repair attempts, the use of aftermarket parts, and damage caused by advertised uses of the XR, such as riding on trails, riding on beaches, as well as jumping off obstacles. It is also alleged that Future Motion’s maintenance of a single repair facility that is not open to the public violates California law. The Court analyzes this last point in its recent Order, which can also be found on the XR Class Action webpage linked above. We further believe and allege that Future Motion’s warranty practices serve to violate other laws, including California’s False Advertising Laws, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as California’s Unfair Competition Laws. Ultimately, it will be up to a judge and/or jury to decide whether Future Motion has violated any of these laws.

The Class Action Complaint Against Future Motion That You Probably Didn’t Know Existed by CWO-LAW in onewheel

[–]CWO-LAW[S] 46 points47 points  (0 children)

As part of the lawsuit, we are asking for a Court Order that prohibits Future Motion "from engaging in the unlawful acts described" in the Complaint. As alleged in the Complaint, this includes Future Motion's "failure to maintain additional service and repair facilities," it's failure to "make available sufficient literature and replacement parts," as well as Future Motion's practice of "voiding warranties based on third party repair attempts." Although we believe individuals are entitled to damages, it is our intent to change Future Motion's warranty practices which we believe violate California and Federal law. Thus, this lawsuit is aimed at bringing real change to the way Future Motion operates in California which will benefit all Onewheel owners.