18.  Front air bags for both drivers and passengers are a fundamental safety feature in  modern vehicles. Federal statutes and regulations promulgated by NHTSA have, for over 20 years,  required all passenger cars to have front air bags for drivers and passengers. These laws and  regulations also require the air bags to meet certain crash-safety standards.   19.  NHTSA’s regulations have further required, for over 12 years, that all passenger  cars have “advanced air bags,” which must have sensors to detect when children and smaller adults  are sitting in the front passenger seat and either deactivate the air bag or deploy the air bag with  less force when appropriate.   20.  Automotive companies now equip most, if not all, models of vehicles with an  Occupant Classification System (“OCS”) – a system of sensors that detect the detect the presence  of a front-seat passenger, the passenger’s approximate weight, and the passenger’s seating  position. OCS data is used to determine if the airbag should be deployed, and the velocity at which  it should be deployed in a collision. Different airbag deployment velocities are used depending  upon the weight of the front-seat passenger.   22.  Nissan marketed and advertised (and continues to market and advertise) its  vehicles, including the 2015 Altimas, as safe and reliable.   23.  For example, Nissan’s website lists the standard “Nissan Advanced Air Bag System  with dual-stage supplemental front air bags with seat-belt and occupant-classification sensors” as  a reason why consumers should purchase a 2015 Altima.2   24.  The web pages for other Nissan vehicles promote similar safety features of the other  Nissan models affected by the 2016 recall. The same information is routinely given to customers  at Nissan dealerships in brochures and is readily available on the internet to any interested car  buyer in the form of digital brochures.   26.  In March 2014, Nissan launched a safety recall campaign to reprogram the OCS  ECU in several different models of 2013 and 2014 Nissan vehicles manufactured prior to March  2014. See Exhibit 1 at p. 4.    27.  Nissan describes the defect as follows:  In the subject vehicles, a small number of rare passenger  ingress scenarios and unusual seating postures immediately  upon entering the vehicle, can cause the Occupant  Classification System (OCS) to initially classify an adult  passenger as a child or classify an occupied seat as an “empty  seat.” In both of such rare instances, the passenger airbag will  be suppressed. If the vehicle begins driving while this  condition is present, the current OCS logic will lock this  classification until the vehicle comes to a stop and remains  stationary for 12-13 seconds.  In the case of a child classification, the current logic is  designed to illuminate the Passenger Airbag Indicator  (PABI) light, alerting the customer that the air bag is  disabled. However, if the initial classification is “empty  seat,” the PABI light will not illuminate and there is no  indication to the seat occupant that the air bag is suppressed.  In both instances, this issue may cause the passenger airbag  not to deploy as designed in a crash, increasing the risk of  injury to the front passenger seat occupant.  Nissan will also address a supply chain error which led to a  small number of incorrect OCS control unit service parts  being installed on certain Nissan Pathfinder vehicles during  service. If this occurred, incompatibility may cause the OCS  not to perform as designed and the passenger airbag not to  deploy as designed in a crash, increasing the risk of injury to  the front passenger seat occupant.  See Exhibit 1, at p. 3-4.   29.  In short, the 2014 recall stems from a defect in the OCS software. The software  installed in the Nissan Vehicles’ OCS may incorrectly determine that the passenger seat is empty  when it is, in fact, occupied.  When that happens, the front passenger seat air bags would fail to  deploy in an accident, increasing the possibility of injury or death to the front seat passenger.  The 2014 Recall Did Not Remedy the OCS Defect   30.  Despite the 2014 recall, Nissan noted an elevated warranty claims rate in relation  to the OCS system in its vehicles, indicating that the OCS defect persisted in many, if not all, of  the affected models of Nissan vehicles. See Exhibit 1, at p. 4.   31.  Despite the fact that Nissan had been aware of the OCS defect for a significant  period of time, the 2014 recall did not properly fix the defect in many, if not all, of the affected  models of Nissan vehicles.   32.  Despite many Nissan vehicle owners going through the time-consuming process of  bringing their vehicles to a Nissan dealer for service to fix the OCS defect, the defect remained,  indicating that those procedures were insufficient to repair the OCS defect.    34.  In late December 2015 to January 2016, Nissan became aware of three incidents  where the OCS system “may not” have performed as designed in a crash.    35.  These incidents, along with the continued complaints from Nissan owners, led to  another Nissan OCS recall beginning in April 2016 (the “2016 recall”).   36.  During or about April 2016, Nissan began sending the Interim Owner Notification  for NHTSA Recall 16V-244 (“ION”) to owners of 2015 Altimas, as well as owners of many other  years and models of Nissan vehicles, as set forth directly below. See ION, attached hereto as  Exhibit 3.   38.  The ION advised Nissan owners, including, but not limited to, owners of 2015  Altimas, that the reason for the 2016 recall was as follows:  The Occupant Classification System (OCS) is designed to classify  the size and weight of the front seat passenger and, under certain  conditions, automatically turn OFF the passenger air bag. The OCS  system is designed to only deploy the front passenger airbag when  the front passenger seat is occupied by an adult. In the affected  vehicles, the OCS software may incorrectly classify the passenger  seat as empty when it is occupied by an adult. If the OCS does not  detect an adult occupant in the passenger seat, the passenger airbag  would be deactivated. Failure of the passenger airbag to deploy  during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the  risk of injury to the passenger.  See Exhibit 3.   39.  Despite the fact that Nissan admitted to its customers that their vehicles contained  a dangerous defect that could cause serious injury or death to a passenger, Nissan did not have  parts available to provide repairs to the affected vehicles at that time. See Exhibit 3.  Plaintiff’s 2015 Altima and Defective OCS   40.  On or about October 10, 2015, Plaintiff purchased and took delivery of a 2015  Nissan Altima from Uftring Nissan (“Uftring”) in Peoria, Illinois, Vehicle Identification Number  55.  Another 2015 Altima owner reported the following to NHTSA on or about  February 27, 2018:  61.  Another 2015 Altima owner reported the following to NHTSA on or about October  28, 2016:  73.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as  members of the proposed class defined as follows (the “Class”):  All individuals or entities who purchased or leased a 2015 Nissan  Altima in the State of Illinois within four years prior to the filing of  this Complaint.   75.  The Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all its member is impractical.  While the exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown to Plaintiff at this time  and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is informed and believes and  thereon alleges that the Class includes thousands of members. Plaintiff alleges that the Class  members may be ascertained by the records maintained by Nissan and its authorized dealers.   76.  This suit is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)  because the Class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impractical and the disposition  of their claims in the Class Action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties and to the  Court.   78.  As an individual who purchased a 2015 Nissan Altima in the State of Illinois within  four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff is asserting claims that are typical of the  Class.   79.  Plaintiff has no interests adverse or antagonistic to the interests of the other  members of the Class.   81.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the  interests of the other Class members not parties to such adjudications or that would substantially  impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their interests.   82.  Nissan has acted or refused to act in respect generally applicable to the Class,  thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with regard to the Class as a whole.   83.  The size and definition of the Class can be identified through Nissan’s records,  Nissan’s agents’ records and/or other third parties’ records.  84.  Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as  if fully set forth herein.     85.  The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Chapter 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. (“Warranty  Act”) is applicable to Plaintiff in that the 2015 Altima was manufactured and purchased after July  4, 1975, and cost in excess of ten dollars ($10.00).   86.  Plaintiff purchased the 2015 Altima, a consumer product, during the written  warranty period applicable to the 2015 Altima and was entitled to enforce the written warranties  against Defendant.   88.  Plaintiff’s purchase of the 2015 Altima was accompanied by written factory  warranties covering any nonconformities or defects in material or workmanship, including the  OCS defect described herein.   89.  Defendant’s written warranty was a basis of the bargain of the sale between  Dealership and Plaintiff.    90.  Plaintiff’s purchase of the 2015 Altima was induced by these written warranties  and Plaintiff relied upon these written warranties to his detriment.   91.  Plaintiff has fully complied with all of his obligations under the written warranties.   92.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to comply with its express  written warranties by failing to correct the OCS defect as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered  and will continue to suffer damages and, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), is entitled to  bring suit for such damages and other legal and equitable relief, including attorneys’ fees incurred  in connection with this action.  93.  Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 92 of this Complaint as  if fully set forth herein.     94.  The 2015 Altima purchased by Plaintiff was subject to implied warranties of  merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7), running  from Defendant to Plaintiff.   95.  Defendant appointed Uftring as its agent for purposes of transferring the implied  warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose to Plaintiff.   97.  Defendant is prohibited from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty when  making a written warranty to a consumer.   98.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2308, Plaintiff’s 2015 Altima was impliedly warranted to  be fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended and for the particular purpose for which  it is used by Plaintiff.   99.  The above-described defects and nonconformities, including the OCS defect,  present in the 2015 Altima render the 2015 Altima unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it was  intended and for the particular purpose for which it is used by Plaintiff.  100.  As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach of implied warranties,  Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer various damages.   Air Bags and the Occupant Classification System   Breach of Written Warranty Pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act   Breach of Implied Warranties Pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act   FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 8,000. UPDATED 10/18/16*LJ  THE CONSUMER STATED AFTER THE RECALL WAS  PERFORMED, THE LIGHTED ILLUMINATED AGAIN. THE  NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 51,000. THE VIN  WAS NOT AVAILABLE.   PLEASE ASSIST ME IN GETTING THIS SAFETY ISSUE  RESOLVED. I CONTACTED NISAN AGAIN AND THEY  HAVE NOT RETURNED MY CALL.   SAFETY ISSUE IN WHICH NO ONE SEAMS TO CARE  ABOUT. YOU WOULD THINK THAT WITH ALL OF THE  RECENT TROUBLES WITH AIRBAGS, SOMEONE WOULD 