Subaru EyeSight & Phantom Braking.
Your California Lemon Law Rights.

You are driving down the freeway, traffic flowing, nothing ahead of you. Then your Subaru stabs the brakes on its own and drops twenty or thirty miles an hour in a heartbeat, while the cars behind you scramble. Nothing was there. It has happened before, and the dealer keeps telling you the system is "working as designed."

If that sounds familiar, you are not imagining it, and you are not alone. The behavior has a name, "phantom braking," and Subaru's EyeSight driver-assist system is now at the center of a federal class action over it. This guide explains what is being alleged, and then answers the question that actually matters for your wallet: should you wait for the class action, or file your own California lemon law claim? For most owners with a real repair history, the answer is not the one the headlines push.

What Owners Say Is Going Wrong With EyeSight

EyeSight is Subaru's suite of safety features, built around a pair of forward-facing cameras mounted near the rearview mirror. Those cameras feed the system that powers automatic emergency braking, lane-keep assist, and adaptive cruise control. When it works, it can help prevent a crash. When it misfires, owners say, it creates one.

The central complaint is that the automatic emergency braking activates when there is no real hazard, reading shadows, overpasses, oncoming road signs, or cresting hills as obstacles and braking hard in response. Drivers describe sudden, violent decelerations at highway speed, the exact situation that invites a rear-end collision. A smaller set of complaints runs the other way, that the system sometimes fails to brake when it should. Phantom braking is not unique to Subaru, either. Federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have fielded these complaints across multiple automakers, and in 2026 Hyundai recalled more than 400,000 vehicles to fix front-camera software that was braking too aggressively.

The Subaru EyeSight Class Action (and the One Before It)

In May 2026, two owners filed a proposed class action, Hall v. Subaru of America, Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-05266), in federal court in New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the EyeSight automatic braking in a long list of recent models is defectively calibrated, applying full braking force when the cameras misread a harmless object. It covers a wide range of 2022 through 2026 Subarus, including the Forester, Outback, Legacy, Ascent, Crosstrek, Impreza, WRX, and BRZ.

Two things are worth keeping straight. First, these are allegations. The case is in its early stages, the claims have not been proven, and Subaru disputes that EyeSight is defective. Second, this is not the first time. An earlier class action over EyeSight braking and lane-keep problems, Sampson v. Subaru, covered older model years and settled in late 2025. That earlier settlement is the most useful thing in this entire story, because it shows you, in concrete terms, what a class action actually delivers to an owner.

Class Action vs. Your Own Claim: The Part Nobody Tells You

When people hear "class action," they picture a big payday. The reality, in defect cases like this, is usually the opposite. A class action spreads a single recovery across hundreds of thousands of owners, and the individual share is small.

Look at what the earlier Subaru EyeSight settlement gave class members: a partial reimbursement of 75 percent of the cost of one qualifying camera repair, plus an extended warranty on that one component. No buyback. No finding that the cars were defective, in fact Subaru expressly denied liability. Meanwhile, the nine named plaintiffs received service awards of $5,000 each, and the attorneys who ran the case were paid roughly $2.4 million in fees. That is not a knock on class actions, they exist to resolve huge numbers of small claims at once, and that is exactly what they did. But for a person whose car genuinely keeps slamming on its brakes, a partial refund on one repair does not fix the problem or make you whole.

Here is the key point: as a California owner, you are usually not required to settle for the class outcome. By opting out of the class, you keep the right to bring your own claim under California's lemon law, which is one of the strongest consumer-protection statutes in the country. The two paths are not close in value:

What California's Lemon Law Can Actually Get You

California's lemon law lives in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, starting at Civil Code section 1790. If a manufacturer cannot repair a warranty defect after a reasonable number of tries, it has to make things right. In practice, that means three things worth real money.

A buyback of your vehicle

Under Civil Code section 1793.2(d), you can be repaid what you put into the car: the price you paid, plus taxes, registration and fees, plus related costs like towing and rental. The only major deduction is a usage offset for the miles you drove before the first repair visit for the defect. You can also ask for a replacement vehicle instead of cash.

A penalty of up to two times your damages

If the manufacturer's refusal to repurchase was willful, Civil Code section 1794(c) allows a civil penalty of up to two times your actual damages. "Willful" does not require bad faith, only that the manufacturer knew its obligations and chose not to meet them. This penalty is often what turns a modest recovery into a meaningful one.

Your attorney's fees, paid by the manufacturer

This is the feature that makes the whole thing work. Under Civil Code section 1794(d), if you win, the manufacturer pays your reasonable attorney's fees and costs, separate from your recovery. That is why reputable lemon law firms, including ours, take these cases with no fee unless you win. You are not choosing between getting help and protecting your recovery. The fee comes from the manufacturer, not from you.

Does Your Subaru Qualify?

Not every annoying glitch is a lemon. The defect has to be covered by the warranty and has to substantially affect the car's use, value, or safety, and the manufacturer has to have had a fair chance to fix it. A safety system that brakes when it should not clears the "safety" bar easily. The real question is usually whether you have given Subaru enough documented repair attempts.

California gives you a helpful shortcut here, a legal presumption under Civil Code section 1793.22. If, within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles, any of the following happened, the law presumes the manufacturer had a reasonable number of chances:

• Two or more repair attempts for a defect that could cause serious injury or death, which a braking malfunction can be.
• Four or more repair attempts for the same problem.
• More than 30 days out of service, cumulatively, for warranty repairs.

And here is the part many drivers get wrong: missing that 18-month/18,000-mile window does not automatically end your case. The window is a presumption that makes your case easier, not a hard deadline. If the defect first showed up during your warranty, you may still have a claim well beyond it. We walk through exactly why in our piece on the 18-month/18,000-mile rule.

A warning about used Subarus

If you bought your Subaru used, read this carefully. In Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024), the California Supreme Court held that a used car carrying only the leftover balance of the original factory warranty does not qualify for the lemon law's buyback remedy. To get that remedy on a used vehicle, it generally has to have been sold with its own warranty issued at the sale, most often a manufacturer-backed Certified Pre-Owned warranty. It is a frustrating rule, and it surprises people, but other remedies can still apply. If you bought used, do not assume you are out, have someone read your paperwork first.

What To Do Right Now

Whether you ultimately file a claim or join the class, the same early moves protect you, and they matter more under California's newer, faster filing rules.

One more wrinkle specific to California. As of 2025, new procedures under AB 1755 and SB 26 can apply to your claim if your manufacturer opted into them. Subaru has published a California written-claims notice page, which points to operating under the new framework, and that framework requires a written notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before suing for civil penalties. Because the state's official opt-in list is updated each year, the safest move is to confirm the current rules before you act, or let an attorney confirm them for you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Subaru EyeSight lawsuit?

Yes. In May 2026, owners filed a proposed class action, Hall v. Subaru of America, Inc., in New Jersey federal court, alleging that EyeSight automatic braking in many 2022-2026 models brakes when there is no obstacle. The claims are unproven and Subaru disputes them. An earlier EyeSight class action settled in late 2025.

Should I join the class action or file my own California claim?

For many California owners with a documented repair history, an individual lemon law claim is stronger. Class settlements here tend to give a partial repair reimbursement or a warranty extension, while an individual claim can mean a full buyback, a penalty of up to two times your damages, and manufacturer-paid attorney fees. You generally have to opt out of the class to pursue your own claim.

What can I recover if my Subaru is a lemon?

If your vehicle qualifies, you can recover a buyback of the price you paid plus taxes, fees, and related costs, minus a mileage offset for use before your first repair visit. If the refusal was willful, you can add a civil penalty of up to two times your damages, and the manufacturer pays your attorney's fees.

Does my Subaru qualify for the lemon law?

Generally, if a warranty defect substantially affects use, value, or safety and cannot be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts. California presumes that standard is met if, within 18 months or 18,000 miles, there were two or more repairs for a serious safety defect, four or more for the same problem, or more than 30 days out of service. A braking malfunction can meet it, but every case turns on its records.

Is my used Subaru covered?

It depends. Under Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024), a used car with only the leftover balance of the original factory warranty does not get the buyback remedy. A used vehicle generally needs its own warranty issued at sale, such as a Certified Pre-Owned warranty, to qualify. Other remedies may still apply, so have your paperwork reviewed.

Talk to a California Lemon Law Attorney

If your Subaru keeps braking on its own and Subaru cannot fix it, you have a real decision to make, and the class action is not automatically your best option. The difference between a partial repair refund and a full buyback with penalties can be many thousands of dollars. Which path is right depends on your records, your model year, and whether you bought new or used.

At Power Lemon Law, every case review is free. There is no obligation, and we do not get paid unless we win, because the manufacturer pays the fees. Bring whatever you have, even if it is just your repair orders and a rough timeline, and we will tell you honestly whether you have a claim and which path is stronger. You can contact us here or call 877-323-LEMON.

If your car brakes when nothing is there, let us take a look.