‘Ford Is No Victim Here’: California Lemon Law Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Ford’s RICO Suit
By Legal Affairs Correspondent
July 29, 2025
In a bold counteroffensive, several California-based law firms, led by Knight Law Group LLP, have urged a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss a high-profile Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit filed by Ford Motor Co. The automaker’s suit, initiated in May 2025, accuses the firms and affiliated attorneys of orchestrating a decade-long scheme to defraud automakers by inflating legal fees in thousands of cases under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law. The defendants, however, argue that Ford’s claims are baseless, retaliatory, and legally deficient, asserting that the automaker is attempting to intimidate advocates for consumer rights.
Ford’s Allegations: A “Magical Mystery Tour” of Fraud
Ford’s 27-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Knight Law Group, along with Altman Law Group, Wirtz Law APC, and several individual attorneys, engaged in a sophisticated fraud scheme that cost Ford and other automakers at least $100 million. The automaker claims the defendants submitted falsified timesheets, including instances of attorneys billing over 24 hours in a single day—most notably, one lawyer allegedly billing 57.5 hours on November 30, 2016. Ford further accuses the firms of overstaffing cases with 10 to 15 attorneys to inflate fees, splitting proceeds, and exploiting the Lemon Law’s fee-shifting provisions, which require automakers to pay legal fees for successful consumer claims. The suit seeks $300 million in treble damages under RICO, citing violations through mail and wire fraud.
The Defense: Ford’s Claims Are “Ridiculous” and Retaliatory
In a motion filed on July 25, 2025, the defendant law firms, represented by Knight Law Group, argued for dismissal, calling Ford’s lawsuit a “thinly veiled attempt to silence firms who would dare to hold them responsible and seek justice for consumers.” The firms contend that Ford’s RICO claims are insufficiently substantiated, time-barred, and protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields petitioning activity, such as litigation, from certain legal challenges. They assert that Ford has failed to demonstrate actual harm to its clients, noting that the automaker does not claim the underlying Lemon Law cases were fraudulent or that consumers were misled.
“Ford is no victim here,” a spokesperson for Knight Law Group stated. “For over 20 years, Knight Law and its attorneys have been California’s leading Lemon Law consumer rights advocates, winning numerous jury verdicts awarding millions in punitive damages for Ford’s documented fraudulent misconduct against consumers.” The firm argues that Ford’s suit is a retaliatory tactic to deter attorneys from pursuing legitimate claims under the Lemon Law, which saw 23,000 filings in California in 2023, up from 4,500 in 2015.
Legal and Industry Implications
The dispute has sparked a broader debate within the legal community about the balance between consumer protection and corporate accountability. Some defense attorneys argue that the Lemon Law’s fee-shifting provisions incentivize overbilling, creating vulnerabilities that Ford’s lawsuit seeks to address. Others, including consumer advocates, warn that Ford’s aggressive litigation could chill legitimate efforts to hold automakers accountable for defective vehicles. Kyla Christoffersen Powell, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, called the alleged fraud scheme a sign of “longstanding problems” with the Lemon Law, urging legislative reforms to curb perverse incentives.
Legal experts are divided on the merits of Ford’s case. Erik Gordon, a lawyer and professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, noted that civil RICO claims, while powerful, require proof of an organized, ongoing scheme, not merely isolated overbilling. He suggested that Ford’s evidence of impossible billing practices, such as the 57.5-hour workday, could strengthen its case if substantiated, but the automaker faces a high bar to prove a coordinated enterprise.
The Road to Resolution
The defendants’ motion to dismiss hinges on several arguments: that Ford’s claims lack specificity under RICO’s stringent requirements, that some allegations fall outside the statute of limitations, and that litigation activities are protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Ford, represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, maintains that its comprehensive investigation uncovered a “massive and unlawful scheme” that deceived courts, clients, and automakers alike. The automaker alleges that other manufacturers, including General Motors, Stellantis, Volkswagen, and BMW, may also have been targeted, broadening the potential impact of the case.
As the court prepares to hear arguments, the outcome could set a precedent for how fee-shifting statutes are enforced and whether automakers can leverage RICO to challenge billing practices. For now, the California legal community watches closely, as the clash between Ford and the Lemon Law firms underscores tensions between consumer advocacy and corporate pushback in one of the nation’s most active litigation arenas.
For updates on this case and other legal developments, stay tuned to [Your Publication Name].