Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to sue a product manufacturer for damages, or why a manufacturer is somehow obligated to include features that a municipality deems to be 'standard'.

The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of features creates a negative externality for local law enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for standing, and this sort of thing is hardly limited to auto antitheft features. Awarding a municipality damages or other relief here would set precedent opening the door to all sorts of whacky things. Should spraypaint manufacturers be held liable for graffiti? Should speaker manufacturers that sell devices without decibel-output-limiters be held liable for noise complaints? The sane answer here to all of this seems like 'no'.

The appropriate venue for dealing with this is federal auto safety regulations, not municipalities trolling manufacturers in civil court.

How far does that line of reasoning go? Suppose that every car they sold used the same key. "We just said that the car has locks. We didn't say that those locks have unique keys."

Clearly there has to be some degree to which a customer can assume that a product they buy meets the standard functionality associated with that product.

Then they still wouldn't be at fault. It's not their fault that the society Baltimore has crafted is so low trust that you can't leave your car outside for a second without it getting stolen.

It's their fault they made a defective product though. When people buy a car the expectation is that you can't steal it in under 10 seconds with no tools.

Like others said, in that case the customer who bought the product has standing to sue, not the city of Baltimore.

These cars are in full compliance of regulations. It is not manufactures fault that the country they sell cars in is so massively incompetent that they do not set proper standards.

The customer has clear cause. Fitness for purpose, warranty, etc. The municipality probably doesn't. If anything, they should try to coordinate a class action lawsuit among consumers.

While that would definitely be a problem, that's the end-user's/customer's problem. It would be appropriate for a Hyundai/Kia buyer to sue Hyundai/Kia for damages experienced because of such a thing. It doesn't make sense for a municipality to sue here - they're not a party with a stake in the ostensibly defective product.

But the city is expending resources (police, mostly) so there is damage.

Yes, and the city taxes its residents to pay for the police—the same residents who bought the cars requiring more police involvement.

It's a self-correcting problem, no lawsuit required.

The city could even have a special tax on "cars without immobilizers" that Kia owners paid, to cover their costs. Again: no lawsuit required.

The city is expected to police all crime regardless. The car manufacturer might (or might not) have some duty to the customer in this area, but certainly not the city for contributing to a crime increase.

You might as well say that a company that produces an exceptionally desirable product, one that perhaps entices thieves, would be responsible for a crime increase.

The city should run a public campaign to publicly advertise the consequences of stealing a vehicle (e.g./ jail, heavy fines, reduced job prospects, etc.). Make it clear criminals will be punished hard for stealing cars. Maybe they can ask the manufacturers and dealers to sponsor or donate to it.

Or the city can run a public campaign advertising these car models as prone to being stolen. That hurts the companies image, which puts pressure on them to get better. Of course it is cheaper if they don't have to buy ad-space for such an advertisement. Maybe they could use publicity around a lawsuit? Maybe that is what we are reading right now?

Public nuisance for having crimes committed against you is a ridiculous legal theory. It's victim blaming to the highest degree.

"Failing to keep up with industry standards" is also ridiculous because it's just a bandwagon fallacy.

>“Hyundai and Kia’s decision to put cost savings and profits over public safety has had significant consequences for Baltimore and its residents..."

Hyundai has some of the safest, most efficient small cars on the road, for great prices. I'd say these things are a net positive to "public safety" over all.

Do those great prices include the cost of recovering a stolen car?

How is hyundai responsible for that? South corea is full of hyundais and there's no such problem there. Maybe the root cause of stealing is different?

They designed a car that is ridiculously easy to steal.

If you are a thief

It's ridiculously easy for anyone to steal. If I buy a door I expect the lock to work, that's the value doors provide. If it turns out that the lock actually does nothing I would consider myself defrauded by the door manufacturer unless they specifically told me that the lock doesn't work.

Go watch the LockPickingLawyer - some of it is skill, but there's a lot of product out there that's painfully easy to bypass.

People have baseline expectations when they buy a product. If you buy a lock the expectation is that you need some level of skill to steal it. If it turns out that anyone can just pull the lock open you've been defrauded by the lock seller. But if the lockpicklawyer opens it you haven't, because no one expects locks to be unpickable.

They cheaped out and didn't include a basic security feature that 96% of all other cars have.[0] This isn't a problem in countries outside the US because they have regulations requiring immobilizers in new cars.

[0] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/09/129_336571.htm...

Feel free to demand an additional discount when buying a Kia/Hyundai in Baltimore.

The article sounds like if you leave the door open you should assume anybody will enter and steal you. This is reversing the victim to the victimary.

In a sexist way would be similar that you are being raped because you wear some specific clothes.

Or you are hacked because you don't apply a patch.

People downvoting are so used to scummy people that they think it's the norm.

In other societies crime is not normal, and "teenagers" have two braincells to understand that a thief is a repugnant person and that the consequences are not worth it.

Nice experiment here in HN, it gives us information about a specific bias.

I have seen teenagers break car windows in London, Brussels, Montreal, Newark NJ... I haven't been to Asia, but I guarantee teenagers do stupid shit there too. I'm not sure why you think teenagers have fully formed brains in other localities but somehow not in Baltimore.

Are you reading the same article? The city is going after Kia, not the car owners. Kia is making defective cars; people are buying them; the city is going after Kia.

Yeah, suing clothing manufacturers because people wearing them were raped is not any better. The city has an obligation to prevent crime, car manufacturers do not.

If anything, the city of Baltimore should sue itself for failing to prevent crime. It would make about as much sense.

Lets do not jump into emotional arguments

Car makers should make their cars as hard as reasonably possible to steal.

If dumb ass tenager can do that, the it is a mess

But that is exactly where this line of reasoning will take you.

If you don't take "reasonable precautions" then you are liable.

I will also note that I often see comments here talking about living in SF and how they leave their car unlocked or windows down to limit the damage from thieves smashing the windows to get inside.

So with this "reasonable precautions" line, everyone who does this should be liable for promoting theft.

In my country, thieves removes your wheels, break your window, etc. Any electronic or hacker approach is very advanced.

If a woman doesn't wear a titanium chastity belt, she can be deemed negligent.

And if LPL can pick up the belt lock then it's fair game.

Sounds stupid, like the way to blame hyundai or kia for existence of scum people like thieves.

It's not an appropriate analogy because Kia is not the victim. They are responsible for securing their vehicles appropriately.

Are the spikes of car thefts similar across all cities? Every large city has Kia and Hyundais, you would think this would be a nationwide phenomenon.

I think it is a mistake to look at all cities, it should be looked at nationwide though.

By only looking at cities you are pulling in a large number of other policies and effects that only cities may have implemented.

Uh it is.. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nationwide-rise-kia-hyundai-car-2...

> Every large city has Kia and Hyundais, you would think this would be a nationwide phenomenon.

It absolutely is, though.

I know that they are also common in Milwaukee.

There's a good article about that; it was recent posted on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35915492

Then punish the thefts. I don't think you people have any common sense. So glad I'm not in the US.