(Breach of Implied and Written Warranties Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,   15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.)   (Breach of Implied Warranty pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,   California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq., and Cal. Comm. Code §2314)   (Breach of Express Warranty, Cal. Com. Code § 2313)   (Violation of Unfair Competition Law,  California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”))   (Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,   California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”))   18.  For years, Subaru has designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and leased the  Class Vehicles.  Upon information and belief, it has sold, directly or indirectly through dealers  and other retail outlets, many thousands of Class Vehicles in California and nationwide.   19.  The Windshield Defect causes the Class Vehicles’ front windshield to crack, chip  and/or fracture for no reason at all and/or under circumstances that would not cause non- defective windshields to similarly fail. The Windshield Defect presents a safety hazard that  renders the Class Vehicles unreasonably dangerous to consumers due to, inter alia, the impact  of the Defect on visibility as well as the Class Vehicles’ structural integrity, and the potential for  injury.       20.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that, as early as  2014, if not before, Subaru became aware of the Windshield Defect through sources not  available to Plaintiff and Class Members, including, but not limited to, pre-production testing,  pre-production design failure mode and analysis data, production design failure mode and  analysis data, early consumer complaints made exclusively to Subaru’s network of dealers and  directly to Subaru, aggregate warranty data compiled from Subaru’s network of dealers,  testing conducted by Subaru in response to consumer complaints, and repair order and parts  data received by Subaru from Subaru’s network of dealers.    21.  In about the Fall of 2015, Subaru purported to extend the original New Car  Limited Warranty of three (3) years/36,000 miles to five (5) years/unlimited miles for front  windshield failure, for one replacement windshield to be provided under certain very limited  circumstances.           4.  The Windshield Defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers, passengers and  pedestrians.  A spontaneously shattering or cracking windshield can impair the driver’s view  and cause driver distraction.  It may also result in dislodged glass that can cause cuts, eye  damage and other injuries.  In addition, the windshield is a vital component of a vehicle’s safety  restraint system, which also includes airbags and seatbelts.  These safety features, including the  windshield, are all part of a safety network.  Each individual component of this network is  dependent on the others functioning properly.  If there is a compromise or weakness in just one  aspect of the network, the likelihood of other parts not working properly is increased.  All  components of a vehicle’s safety restraint system are designed to work together to keep vehicle  occupants within the relative safety of the passenger compartment during collision or roll over.      45.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.    46.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  members of the Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the members of the  California Sub-Class.    47.  Subaru is a “person” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(c).     5.  In addition to these obvious safety hazards, the cost to repair the Windshield  Defect can be exorbitant, requiring consumers to pay significant sums over the life of their Class  Vehicles.       6.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant  knew the Class Vehicles were defective and not fit for their intended purpose of providing  consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter.  Defendant  has actively concealed the true nature and extent of the Windshield Defect from Plaintiff and the  other Class Members, and failed to disclose it to them, at the time of purchase or lease and  thereafter.  Had Plaintiff and prospective Class Members known about the Windshield Defect,  they would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them.      60.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.    61.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  members of the Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the members of the  California Sub-Class.    62.  California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 prohibits acts of “unfair  competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and  “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”     63.  Defendant knew that the Class Vehicles’ front windshields suffered from an  inherent defect, were defectively designed and/or manufactured, would fail prematurely, and  were not suitable for their intended use.     64.  In failing to disclose the Windshield Defect, Defendant knowingly and  intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so, thereby engaging in a  fraudulent business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.     74.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.    75.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  members of the Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the members of the  California Sub-Class.    76.  Defendant was at all relevant times the manufacturer, distributor, warrantor,  and/or seller of the Class Vehicles.  Defendant knew or had reason to know of the specific use  for which the Class Vehicles were purchased.   77.  Defendant provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an implied warranty that  the Class Vehicles and any parts thereof were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes  for which they were sold.  However, the Class Vehicles were and are not fit for their ordinary  purpose of providing reasonably reliable and safe transportation because the Class Vehicles  suffer from a Windshield Defect that can make driving unreasonably dangerous.    78.  Defendant impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles were of merchantable  quality and fit for such use.  This implied warranty included, among other things: (i) a  warranty that the Class Vehicles’ front windshields designed, manufactured, supplied,  distributed, and/or sold by Defendant were safe and reliable for providing transportation; and  (ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles’ front windshields would be fit for their intended use  while the Class Vehicles were being operated.   79.  Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the Class Vehicles’ front  windshields, at the time of sale and thereafter, were not fit for their ordinary and intended  purpose of providing Plaintiff and the other Class Members with reliable, durable, and safe  transportation.  Instead, the Class Vehicles are defective, as described more fully above.   81.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   82.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  members of the Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the members of the  California Sub-Class.   83.  As a result of Defendant’s breach of the applicable express warranties, owners  and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles suffered, and continue to suffer, an ascertainable loss of  money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles.  Additionally, as a result of the  Windshield Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in  that the Class Vehicles’ windshields are substantially certain to fail before their expected useful  life has run.     84.  Defendant provided all purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles with the  express warranty described herein, which became a material part of the bargain.  Accordingly,  Defendant’s express warranty is an express warranty under California law.   85.  Defendant manufactured and/or installed the front windshield in the Class  Vehicles, and it is covered by the express warranty.   86.  Subaru provided all purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles with New Car  Limited Warranty.  In this New Car Limited Warranty, Subaru expressly warranted that it  covered “any repairs needed to correct defects in material or workmanship reported during the  applicable warranty period which occur under normal use.”  Subaru promised Basic Coverage  under the New Car Limited Warranty of “3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first.”     90.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   91.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  members of the Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the members of the  California Sub-Class.    92.  Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   93.  Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §§  2301(4)-(5).   94.  The Class Vehicles are “consumer products” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §  2301(1).   95.  Defendant’s implied warranty is an “implied warranty” within the meaning of  ACROSS THE WINDSHIELD FROM DRIVERS SIDE TO THE MID  POINT OF THE WINDSHIELD. CRACK IS IN DRIVERS LINE OF  SIGHT, AND A SAFETY HAZARD. TOOK IT TO DEALER, WHO  AND AGAIN BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVIDE AN ETA WE  WOULDN'T KNOW HOW LONG WE'D NEED ONE ASSUMING WE  COULD GET ONE. BASED ON WHAT I READ HERE THIS COULD  AND I HAVE TO GET IT REPAIRED USING MY INSURANCE .   NHTSA Complaint:  WINDSHIELD CRACK ON A 2016 SUBARU  OUTBACK LIMITED WITH EYESIGHT, PURCHASED NEW IN  AND SEAL IN UPPER RIGHT IS BROKEN, AND CAN'T TAKE IT  OUT OF THE GARAGE BECAUSE THERE'S A DELUGE OF RAIN  OUT THERE. MUST WAIT FOR FACTORY REPLACEMENT  ANY DEBRIS HITTING THE WINDSHIELD . I RESEARCHED ON  THE INTERNET AND FOUND NUMEROUS SIMILAR INCIDENTS  WITH SUBARU OUTBACKS. I BELIEVE THIS IS A MAJOR  AROUND  WINDSHIELD  ESPECIALLY  AT THE BOTTOM AND A BIT TOWARDS THE DRIVER SIDE AND  GOING UP THEN CURVING TOWARDS THE RIGHT, IN AN L  SHAPE. BY THE NEXT MORNING THE HORIZONTAL PART OF  BACK-ORDER; THIS GLASS IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE.   NHTSA Complaint:  WENT OUTSIDE TO WASH THE CAR AND  BEFORE I EVEN GOT STARTED I NOTICED A CRACK IN THE  BEING TOLD 10/28. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN EXTERNAL  IMPACT AND AS THE CAR IS SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY IT  SEEMS IT IS BEING PUSHED OUT FROM THE INSIDE.   NHTSA Complaint:  TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 SUBARU  CRACK SEEMS TO BE GETTING LARGER. THE SUBARU DEALER  WILL  NOT  DECEMBER 1, 2014, WINDSHIELD REPLACED WITH IDENTICAL  MODEL BY CARLEX (MINUS THE SUBARU OEM STICKER). THE  REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD HAS EXHIBITED THE SAME  DESIGN OF THE OUTBACK.   DESTINATION.  LOCAL  AUTO  DEVELOPED. CRACK STARTED AT AROUND 14 INCHES, AND  CONTINUES TO GROW LONGER. CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AT  HIGHWAY SPEEDS WHEN CRACK FIRST APPEARED, AT  DIFFICULTY GETTING THE PART. WHEN THE WINDSHIELD IS  FINALLY REPLACED, WILL HAVE THAT AREA CAREFULLY  INSPECTED FOR POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS.   NHTSA Complaint:  WINDSHIELD CRACKED WHILE DRIVING ON  DOUBLED IN SIZE. A WINDSHIELD WHICH FAILS UNDER  TYPICAL DAY-TO-DAY CONDITIONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.   NHTSA Complaint:  I BOUGHT A 2016 SUBARU OUTBACK ON  EYESIGHT. THERE IS A DEFECT.   NHTSA Complaint:  WINDSHIELD CRACKED FROM DRIVERS SIDE  BOTTOM CORNER ACROSS THE MID LINE ABOVE THE  FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 12,000.   NHTSA Complaint:  OUR 2015 SUBURU OUTBACK WAS  PURCHASED IN APRIL 2015. IN JULY, THE WINDSHIELD  FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3,400...UPDATED 06/09/15*BF   NHTSA Complaint:  WINDSHIELD CRACKED FROM PASSENGER  SIDE WIPER AREA UP AND ACROSS WINDSHIELD WHILE CAR  FROM THE FIRST BUT A WHOLE NEW CRACK. IM TAKING IT TO  MY DEALER TOMORROW.   NHTSA Complaint:  TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 SUBARU  GREW QUICKLY. THERE IS A TINY CHIP, LESS THAN A PIN  HEAD IN SIZE NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CRACK. NO STAR,  AND NOT THE SIZE I WOULD TAKE TO GET FIXED. I DIDN'T  IMPACT TO THE GLASS, WHICH HAD BEEN REPLACED LESS  THAN  10  JUNE AND TWO DAYS LATER ANOTHER CRACK-INSTANT AND  BIGGER. SAW THE ROCK THIS TIME. CLAIMED ON THE  INSURANCE, AGAIN, BUT SAFELIGHT HAD TO CANCEL THE  MANY CUSTOMERS, BOTH OLD AND NEW.   NHTSA Complaint:  WITHIN 9 DAYS OF RECEIVING A  REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD FOR MY SUBARU OUTBACK, MY  MONTHS OF VEHICLE USE. *TR   NHTSA Complaint:  PURCHASED CAR NEW FROM DEALER. CAR  HAD BEEN SITTING IN DRIVEWAY FOR 4-5 DAYS. I WENT  MORE MINUTES OF DRIVING I HEARD A LOUD POP. A 8 INCH  VERTICAL CRACK STARTED ON THE WINDSHIELD. IT STARTED  LOW, BY THE WIPERS, AROUND THE MID-LINE OF THE  MOST DEALERS AND GLASS REPLACEMENT COMPANIES.   GIVEN THE OVERALL NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT  WINDSHIELD CRACKING (BOTH HERE AND AVAILABLE  NOT COVER THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE  MILEAGE WAS 6,000.   NHTSA Complaint:  TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 SUBARU  OCCURRED  BEGINNING  OF  ON THE DRIVERS SIDE, RAISED THE DRIVERS SIDE WIPER,  WENT AROUND THE FRONT OF THE CAR AND RAISED THE  PASSENGER SIDE WIPER. I THEN WASHED AROUND THE CAR.  PEBBLE HIT THE WINDSHIELD, BUT UPON LATER INSPECTION I  COULD NOT FIND A DISTINCT STARTING POINT FOR THE  CRACK IN THE WINDSHIELD CRACK (NO DENTS OR PLACES  SMALL STAR SHAPE MARK THAT I THOUGHT COULD BE  FIXED. HOWEVER IT SPREAD QUICKLY. I WENT TO AMERICAN  AUTO GLASS AND WAS TOLD THAT HE HAD MANY OF THESE  START THE CRACK. SUBARU NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING  ABOUT THIS -MAYBE THICKER GLASS? MAYBE A RECALL?  WE'VE DRIVEN SUBARU'S FOR MANY YEARS AND HAVE NOT  STILL SAFE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AS I DO NOT HAVE THE  $500.00+ TO REPLACE THE WINDSHIELD AT THIS TIME.?   NHTSA Complaint:  I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE NEW IN  SUBARU AND POSSIBLY LAST IF THE PROBLEMS PERSIST. ALL  OF THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING BUT WHEN I  DISCOVERED THE CRACK IT WAS PARKED IN THE GARAGE.  SUBARU AND HAD IT INSPECTED BY SUBARU AND THEY SAID  I NEEDED A NEW WINDSHIELD AND THAT IT WAS NOT  COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I THAN BROUGHT IT TO  THAT  RESULTS  IN  THE  THESE ARE EXPENSIVE TO KEEP REPLACING AND I AM  CONCERNED WITH SAFETY OF THESE WINDSHIELDS.   NHTSA Complaint:  A SMALL OBJECT HIT THE PASSENGER SIDE  THIS  PAST  WEEK  WE  THIS CAR IN FOUR MONTHS. *TR   NHTSA Complaint:  AFTER OWNING CAR ROUGHLY 1.5 MONTHS,  FRONT WINDSHIELD DEVELOPED A ROUGHLY 15 - 20 INCH  THIS YEAR ON THEIR 2015 OUTBACKS. THIS IS NOT  ACCEPTABLE! I EMAILED SUBARU AND DID GET A REPLY  SUGGESTING I TAKE THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND LET THEM  THOUGHT  WAS  DEFECT  IN  THE  WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECTS ON THE DEICER AREA AND  CRACKS ON THIS AREA IS COVERED. MY CRACK IS LITTLE  ABOVE THIS AREA AND THEY SAY IT IS NOT COVERED. I DO  WHEN IT IS A FEW INCHES APART. SUBARU IS TRYING TO  LIMIT LIABILITY FOR A DESIGN OR MANUFACTURING FLAW.  WE BELIEVE THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.   NHTSA Complaint:  MY WINDSHIELD CRACKED WHILE ON THE  WINDSHIELD PROBLEM I'VE HAD THAT'S HAD A PROGRESSIVE  CRACK, AND THIS IS A BRAND NEW CAR! I'M READING THAT  I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THIS PROBLEM!   NHTSA Complaint: OUR WINDSHIELD DEVELOPED A CRACK  WINDSHIELD FAILURES ON 2015 SUBARU OUTBACKS THAT  SUGGEST SUBPAR GLASS OR A DEFECT IN THE STRUCTURAL  INTEGRITY OF THE CHASSIS THAT IS CAUSING THE GLASS TO  WINDSHIELD CRACKED FROM THE CENTER BOTTOM UP AND  TOWARD THE DRIVERS SIDE. CRACK CURRENTLY EXTENDS  UP ABOUT 8 INCHES. AS BEFORE, THERE WAS NO STRIKE  YEAR'S OWNERSHIP OF THIS CAR. THE FIRST ONE WAS  CRACKED WHEN I PARKED MY CAR IN THE PARKING LOT OF A  COSTCO  WAREHOUSE. LOOKING AT THE COMPLAINS FILED   NHTSA Complaint: IN THE COURSE OF DRIVING AROUND OUR  AREA, MY WIFE & I PARKED OUR NEW 2015 SUBARU LEGACY  FOR AN HOUR TO DO SOME SHOPPING. WHEN WE GOT BACK   NHTSA Complaint:  THIS WILL BE THE SECOND WINDSHILED  REPLACED SINCE I BOUGHT MY OUTBACK IN MARCH 2015.  FIRST TIME IT CRACKED, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, 2   NHTSA Complaint: I BOUGHT THE CAR AS A DEALER CAR (THEY  TOLD ME IT WAS REGISTERED TO A MANAGER AS A TEST  CAR). IT HAD 4,810 MILES WHEN I BOUGHT IT. I HAVE DRIVEN 