If you’ve been anywhere around the internet in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, you’ve probably heard about the phenomenon known as the Kia Boyz. Basically, a bunch of clever people discovered that a large swath of modern Hyundais and Kias built from 2011 to 2022 were not equipped with immobilizer anti-theft devices, allowing them to be easily started without a key. They also discovered the cars could be started with the male end of a USB-A plug, making thefts incredibly straightforward.
Thanks to the power of the internet and social media, the “method” of how to quickly and easily get most modern Kias and Hyundais running and driving spread like wildfire, resulting in a massive increase in the number of thefts for such vehicles, with people filming the process going viral on places like TikTok and Instagram. Despite software and hardware updates to curb the issue, thefts have persisted.
In a settlement to a 34-state lawsuit led by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to install anti-theft devices on more than 4 million cars, and install engine immobilizer anti-theft technology on all future vehicles sold in the United States. The “devices” in question, according to Reuters, will be zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protectors, which shield the keyhole area in the steering column, similar to what my colleague Matt’s dad had installed on his 2012 Kia Soul. It works by protecting the key cylinder from being cracked open, which is how thieves are able to start the car without a key.
Spacer
These devices will be installed on cars that were previously only eligible for software updates. This video shows how the cylinder is installed:
Equipment updates aren’t the only thing Hyundai and Kia are paying for. From Reuters:
Hyundai and Kia will also pay up to $9 million in restitution to consumers and to states to defray the costs of the investigation. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said the cost of installing ignition cylinder protectors on all eligible vehicles could exceed $500 million, citing estimates from the automakers.
“By failing to include industry-standard anti-theft technology in their vehicles, Hyundai and Kia unleashed a wave of auto thefts that cost Minnesotans their cars, their hard-earned money, and sometimes even their lives,” Ellison said.
The two companies have also agreed to pay up to $4.5 million in restitution to people whose vehicles were damaged by thieves stemming from these incidents, according to Fortune. Citing a report from 2023, Reuters says the trend of stealing cars has led to at least 14 reported crashes and eight deaths.
Both automakers gave pretty run-of-the-mill statements to Reuters regarding the settlement:
Hyundai said resolving the investigation is another step forward in addressing thefts involving certain 2011 through 2022 model year vehicles without engine immobilizers. “This cooperative agreement builds upon Hyundai’s ongoing efforts to enhance vehicle security in response to a method of theft popularized on social media,” Hyundai said.
Kia said the agreement “is the latest in a series of steps that Kia has taken to support our customers who have been impacted by criminals.” Kia said the zinc-sleeve hardware modification combats the theft method inspired by social media “by reinforcing the ignition cylinder body and preventing its removal.”
Owners of cars that are eligible to receive the reinforced cylinder upgrade will be notified of their eligibility in early 2026 and have until the end of 2027 to go to a dealer to get it installed, free of charge. Whether it actually curbs this issue for good, well, only time will tell.
Top graphic images:Hyundai;
Hyundai and Kia are on my do-not-buy list because of this debacle. Doesn’t matter if it’s a newer car or EV with the tech, I don’t want to support them.
Yes, I know all corporations are evil and only in it for profit. But I am unable to build my own car capable of meeting my needs. I’ll support a slightly less evil/dumb one first.
They’ve tried unsuccessfully to steal my Mom’s Forte from her retirement center twice now. Once after the recall was done on it. Both times a broken window, destroyed steering column, and a couple of thousand dollars in damage. Dumb asses apparently couldn’t see the flashing security system light on the dash top. The complexes security cameras landed a couple of those Kia boyz behind bars. On the 2nd theft attempt the car that dropped the thugs off stopped at the perfect spot for the tag to get captured on camera. Surprisingly the get away car wasn’t stolen.
I have put my own crude immobilization measures on some cars. A switch to the coil so that the engine would crank but not run was easy. Turning off the electric fuel pump so the car would run for about 30 seconds and stop in traffic was better.
But I do not like factory immobilizers at all. I have had to junk two perfectly good Volvos because it would cost more than they were worth to *maybe* get them fixed because all the parts had to be reprogrammed, and they had to do that before they could figure out what was causing the problem.
Immobilizers are just awful blights.
I have had two cars that I drove in nyc that had “keyless” ignition , because the key was broken off in the lock in one, and I lost the key for the other. The only problem I had was when a policeman saw me opening the hood to hotwire my 62 ford and was overwhelmed with curiosity.
But immobilizers , just no.
I don’t know if the problem still exists, but when the fix was first being implented, it didn’t stop them from getting broken into. Thieves didn’t know if they car had a fix applied until they tried to steal it, so your car still got messed up.
One thing that was going on during the Kia Boyz era around here (PNW) was them stealing one, backing into a cannabis store’s doors, hauling out a bunch of stuff and then jumping into an accomplice’s vehicle and eloping. There’s been less of that lately, but I have a friend with a relatively recent Sonata, who still uses The Club every time he parks. His car got stolen from in front of a restaurant and was fortunately recovered relatively undamaged a few hours later.
While I am so me and my fellow Hyundai/Kia owners finally get the W. (well in 2 years realistically). The fact that the USA STILL does not mandate immobilizers infuriates me. There at least could have been a congressional hearing with the auto executives. Like the US government has the power to Mandate the immobilizers, they could even make the madate retroactive for vehicles made in the past if they wanted to. I’m sure the government would get sued if they tried the retroactive part but USA would PROBABLY win.
Unhinged that a car company is at fault for people being unapologetic criminals and clout chasers. I don’t care if a car is running with the keys in it, if it isn’t yours, don’t touch it.
I live in Milwaukee, where the Kia Boyz are a big phenomenon. The thing is, once you have groups of people that jumped into auto thievery through a simple hack, pretty soon they’re looking for other stuff to steal. However, they’re too lazy to learn how to actually steal a car, so they just smash the back window, jump in, and completely destroy the ignition cylinder and steering column trying to start a non-Kia/Hyundai vehicle. I had my 10-year-old Ford Escape totaled in my driveway by one such attempt. On the plus side, I took the insurance settlement and bought myself a 2019 Fiat 500 turbo manual. My favorite drive ever, and the stick shift makes the most effective modern theft deterrent.
I’m curious if this is an issue in my province. A law passed in the mid/late 2000s to curb auto theft required immobilizers to be installed on all vehicles in the province, with our provincial insurance company paying to get them installed on cars that were too old to have one from the factory. It cut auto theft down considerably, since car thieves here were pretty opportunistic; the most popular vehicles stolen were Chrysler products with old columns that could be started easily, and GM products with the PassKey system that looked for whether the ignition tumbler had cycled (defeated with a large flathead screwdriver). I remember taking my 1988 Daytona and 1993 Sunbird in for their immobilizers, and getting a cheap RFID dongle to attach to my keychain so that I could start the vehicle.
Assuming Canada? The issue does not exist or at least wouldn’t rise above all other auto thefts.
Yes, in Manitoba specifically; we had the immobilizer mandate in 2006 according to a quick news search, and it was expanded later on (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/50-000-more-manitoba-cars-require-immobilizers-1.724953) to include more vehicles as thieves started moving to different targets than the initial groups of heavily stolen vehicles. The federal mandate that Ranwhenparked mentioned handled new vehicles, and the Manitoba law covered the older vehicles as well.
Canada has mandated immobilizers on all new cars for almost 20 years now, so, while Quebec and Ontario saw a rising auto theft problem in general for other reasons, this particular Hyundai/Kia situation was never an issue
How do they retrofit an effective standardized immobilizer on a car without a computer controlling everything?
Nice to see personal responsibility is still a thing…
/s
Having owned an affected car, H/K shouldn’t just be paying theft victims, they should be paying *everyone* who owned one. The reason I dumped mine, at a huge loss, is because I was paying 50% more for car insurance than someone with a similar car from a different manufacturer. Every owner was affected by this stupidity, not just people whose cars were stolen.
Hyundai Kia failed to read the room in a spectacular fashion. If only they offered immobilizers as soon as the problem began to make the news.Would have saved them over a Billion dollars.
I bought a used 2018 Soul + (no push button start) four years ago for my teenage kids to drive. I knew it didn’t have a immobilizer but I had no idea it was so easy to break the ignition lock until it became headline news. Kia did send me letters on this and they did reinforce the ignition lock a couple of years ago for free. The cylinder lock is now protected with a metal cylinder that’s epoxied on. The problem is would be thieves won’t know that until they broke into the car and tried to steal it.
If thieves were smart (big “if”) they could check from outside the car first. The protector takes the place of the light ring and is clearly visible.
Big, load-bearing “if”
We had push-button ones busted into, no way that detail would be a big deterrent.
My mother is an amputee and last week had two custom bikes stolen from her garage. Very distinct
/unusual looking bikes. Two days later they were on Facebook marketplace in the same town (police did their job and busted them). But yeah it’s impressive how stupid criminals can be.
When Kia did my Soul, they put on window decals saying it was protected against theft. (Yeah, decals don’t prove anything, I’d already put decals on my windows even though it wasn’t true.)
I also took to using a steering wheel club. (Not the crap one Kia gave away, my second thief bent that POS in half. A few months later, Lockpicking Lawyer demo’d how.) Maybe one of those changes helped. There’s a plastic cover under the steering column that gets ripped off as the first step, and a few months later someone left one (from another Soul) sitting on my hood. I guess that’s thief humor.
As @JJ says, the lock bezel changes, but they’ve got to know to look for that, and it’s not that easy to see.
Pretty wild, the comments here.
Like, yes, duh, obviously, the thieves should be punished and are likely being punished, but this issue of mass theft was confined to a very specific few vehicles. Thieves weren’t targeting these cars because they’re cool and desirable, they were targeting them because they were easy to steal, which is directly the fault of Hyundai/Kia. There’s no excuse for not making immobilizers standard equipment, and that goes for any other OEM who was doing the same thing around this time. Blaming the people who bought the cars is insane, to me, especially since a lot of these were probably bought used.
Thank you.
I bought a ‘16 Sorento and I promise I’m not a dunce.
I included price, the then-newer Theta II, AWD performance in the diagonal test, size, features, hell, even where the exhaust was routed around the rear axle in my calculations but nope, no immobilizer plus ez-break ignition lock didn’t even hit my radar.
I had a 90’s Toyota without an immobilizer before (including solid metal key!) but that wouldn’t have been nearly as easy to get at the ignition switch. Funny how those weren’t stolen by teens left and right.
Ultimately I was fed up with worrying about the engine seizing in the country as the failures continued and being broken into/vandalized in the city.
But they’ve been breaking sales records so what are the odds they’ve learned anything?
Similarly, I wonder if any state AGs will go after Ford for the superduty taillight thefts. I read somewhere that replacement taillight assemblies for the upper trim F250s and up can cost more than $5k. That seems believable because the assembly has all the blind-spot-monitor sensors in it, but I didn’t double check the price.
Anyone know Torch was during these taillight thefts?
He has been suspiciously quiet about these particular headlights
I’m not sure why Ford would be legally at fault for expensive tail lights?
“Basically, a bunch of clever people”
“Clever” would not have been my adjective of choice. H/K should be punished for this crap but what about the losers who stole the cars? Even the parents are pleading with the court to put them away:
“Please arrest him. Lock him up. Do something that’s going to make him pay for the things that he’s out here doing,”
https://mycolumbuspower.com/4699457/kia-boys-teen-prison-sentence-columbus/
I have a coworker that had his Tesla stolen from his driveway (left the keycard in it which wasn’t smart, kids saw it and stole the car) which was crappy to begin with, but the same group of kids stole 8 other cars to joyride from the same neighborhood that night, all Kias and hyundais. Despite being caught and detained, they were all released and weren’t able to be charged due to some policy about charging minors. The cops even said the same group had been caught doing the same thing a few weeks earlier
I actually just remembered my brothers Hyundai got stolen last year too and was found on the other side of Austin with a dude sleeping in it.
There has to be some middle ground between catch and release and destroying a kids life with a criminal record, even if they asked for it.
You’d also think it would be easy, even trivial to track down the thieves and get them convicted when they post their crimes for all to see online.
If they get caught more than twice for the same thing, charge them as an adult since they clearly know what they’re doing.
I dunno if even that would change anything other than ruin their lives.
Why not ruin their lives then? If they’re getting popped twice or thrice or God forbid more times for a felony offense, even the same felony GTA offense in the case of these kids posting their thefts of Hyundai/Kia vehicles all over Tik-Tok, they are doing it because they are savvy enough to know damn well that they won’t face any consequences simply because they haven’t hit that magic number “18” yet. Now granted, they may be too young and dumb to understand what going through the rest of their lives with a criminal record will likely mean for them, but they are more than old enough to grasp simple concepts like right and wrong. Our current systems in place simply teach them that even if they get caught in the act of committing a crime, hey nothing bad will happen to me as long as I’m still 17. If we want this sorta thing to stop, or at least happen far less frequently, let’s actually have some real consequences for 16-17 year olds committing felonies. Let em see they won’t simply be given a stern talking to and be sent on their way. Let them see time behind bars and having to note on job applications that they are convicted felons. Maybe we’ll see less cars being stolen simply cause some clown went online and decided to show everyone how easy it is.
Because then they permanently become even more of a burden on society than they already are. Prison is damned expensive and any profit they generate as 13th amendment slaves of the state goes into the coffers of private interests while the cost of incarceration is shouldered by the taxpayer.
I’m not saying however they should get off scott free either because you are also correct, doing nothing doesn’t make the problem go away. That’s why I’m looking for a middle ground.
Maybe public humiliation? They like Tic Toc challenges, right? How about posting followup videos to their Kia challenge videos of them performing *challenges* like bare hand toilet scrubbing, roadside trash pickup, boulder breaking, running while shackled or being pelted with rotten garbage by their victims all while wearing prison orange. Tarring and feathering is also on the table but they can wear their own clothes for that. They can also have “I MAKE BAD CHOICES!” tattooed (temporatily) on their foreheads for the duration of their punishment.
I absolutely agree with this point.
And that’s the problem: now that they know there’s no consequence, they’ll do it again next week too.
Yep. It’s a huge issue in the area and it stems from affluent families and the good ol’ boys club pretending like they’ll “take care of it at home”
Sorry but this is stupid. Hyundai / Kia buyers had the option to buy trims with immobilizers. They chose not to do that to save money.
It is long past time we start holding people responsible for their own decisions instead of blaming companies.
We have a 2010 Soul Sport that is not part of this issue, but we still had difficulty finding insurance simply because it’s a Kia. That’s on the company, not the owner.
That was caused by the thieves not the OEM.
No, it was a bonehead move for the OEM to make it optional. The knock-on effect was that all Kias and Hyundais are painted with the same broad brush and now people who were not directly affected by the issue have downstream problems because of it.
By the same token, its my housebuilders fault if I get robbed because he installed cheap locks on the doors?
Not the same token at all.
Please explain how a cheap lock set, legally installed, leading to a stupid online trend and resulting in me being robbed is not the same for the car and the house. I’m willing to be convinced by sound logic.
It’s the youtuber lock picking lawyers fault, duh! Anything but personal responsibility in this country!
It’s called “notice” and “reasonable expectations.”
Any semi-handy person of average intelligence can see and feel when a home’s entry lockset is junk. If I install a $10 lockset on my entry doors and all of the other entry locksets at Big Box Stores are $100, then I know I’m being a cheapskate and am setting myself up for a burglar.
Hyundai and Kia owners did not receive notice that manufacturers saved a few dollars by not including anti-theft devices required in other countries AND in other models sold in the US.
Hyundai and Kia owners had reasonable expectations that their vehicles could not be started and operated with a ubiquitous cable found in virtually every vehicle.
Relax, he led by saying his comment was stupid.
Vehicle spec is easy to find. Lots of makers we’re doing this at the time. Organized crime is the issue, not the maker providing customer choice and customers making said choice.
I agree, but note that in my neighborhood, they break in by breaking a window. So if homebuilders put ground-floor windows in the house, they should be responsible.
Re cars, we need immobilizers that don’t raise the cost of a key from $2.99 to $300.
Agreed. And what of times where there are immobilizers, but the thieves start using programming tools to make new keys or trick the car into thinking there is a key present. We need the manufacturers to find these trends or weaknesses that are being exploited and fix them.
That’s on the insurance company for having bad data and making blanket statements of KIA = BAD.
It is on the thieves. You are unfortunate collateral damage but Hyundai did nothing wrong. They meet all US vehicle requirements.
Then why did they agree to pay half a billion dollars?
It is often cheaper to settle than to fight a class action.
That’s on the insurance companies, not the automaker.
Imagine if your cousin had a habit of attempting insurance fraud and insurance companies refused to insure YOU because of it.
The whole Kia Hyundai insurance issue really reenforced my belief that mandatory insurance is shit.
What happens if an insurance company refuses to insure your car? Now it’s illegal to drive in 49 of 50 states.
I’m more on this side of the issue. There is no legal requirement to add anti theft systems. All they did was build a car that is exactly as stealable as every car built in the 90s. Tik Tok theft trends and stupid children are not the fault of the manufacturer. It sucks highly, but no one is at fault here but the thieves.
They took advantage of a weak system that existed because of an OEM that was trying to save a few bucks per car. Theft is inevitable. Of course the the thieves should be punished, but this issue was confined to a very specific few models of cars. If it was a widespread car theft Tiktok trend and every vehicle of every make was being broken into and stolen en masse, then yeah, you can claim it’s a crime problem. Hyundai/Kia knowingly sold less-secure cars. They should have to pay up.
I support arguments that regulations may be aimed incorrectly. I support arguments that for goodwill sake, they should have handled this whole thing very differently.
I do not support “they should have to pay”, because that is a legal conclusion in this scenario. They followed all regulations. They did not at any time mislead anyone. I don’t even believe that their decision not to include immobilizers is inherently amoral. To me, legally and morally, they did not do anything wrong. They are also victims of an online trend that isolated and highlighted a failing that existed in other models at the same time, but due to internet points, they and their customers got the focus.
“Theft is inevitable” because it was easier than stealing other cars is no different than any other victim blaming.
Could they have anticipated it? Likely. Should they have done something different? Probably. Does that make them at fault? Only if you blame me for getting robbed because I chose to walk in a bad part of town talking loudly about how much money I’m carrying whilst wearing expensive shoes and watch.
My point is that theft, as a concept, is inevitable. If I leave a car unlocked, literally anywhere, with the keys in it, it will be stolen at some point. It’s just going to happen. Thieves took advantage of these cars, specifically, because they were so easy to steal, which is the fault of the manufacturer.
I don’t claim to know anything about law so I don’t know if this is ruling is legally fair or not, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t shed a single tear that one of the largest companies on earth has to throw a few crumbs to people who financially suffered because of that company’s decisions.
The flimsy plastic ignition lock cylinder made it easier to steal than historically.
AGREED. The people who bought the cars AND the people who stole them.
My DD is a 2012 Rio. The car was gifted to me. How is it the third owner’s responsibility that Kia cheaped out and did not install an immobilizer in a US vehicle that Kia installs in otherwise the exact same vehicle in Canada?
This line of thinking blames the owner and potential victim, which did not have a say in Kia’s decision. Kia sold a line of vehicles it knew were defective. Further, it did not disclose this defect when it sold the cars. According to your line of thinking, how were buyers to know Kia/Hyundai half-assed the ignition switch and did not include an immobilizer? There seems to be a lot of hindsight built into your arguments.
Kia’s behavior is reprehensible and makes me not trust Kia or its parent Hyundai.
Fortunately, I can still find insurance. Fortunately, my DD hasn’t been stolen. However, every time I leave the car parked in public I fully expect it will not be there when I return.
There is nothing defective about a vehicle without an immobilizer. It was an option – the original buyer didn’t select that option. You didn’t bother to check when you bought the car used.
None of that is Hyundai’s fault nor were they the only companies selling vehicles in this era without that tech. Nissan, Honda, Toyota where doing the same.
Existence or non-existence of an immobilizer is not mentioned in any 2012 documentation I can find for my vehicle.
Push-button start, sure, that’s mentioned in top-trim options.
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Sure. It is called personal responsibility. Rare these days but perfectly legal.
It’s surely better dope than I get at the dispensary. Or maybe I am just being a cheapskate.
So what do you want them to do? You want a free fix that brings the security up to modern standards on the 13 year old car you got for free? Where’s my free car and free insurance reduction plan?
As part of a recall, Kia’s already swapped out the plastic ignition switch cylinder with a metal one. Supposedly, that change makes it more difficult for a thief to expose the lock cylinder using bare hands.
Adding an immobilizer, which is standard equipment for my car in Canada, would go a long way to restoring my trust in the brand.
As far as making me and other affected owners whole for increased insurance costs, maybe sending me a coupon for $x off on my purchase for a new Kia in the next 12 months would be a smart gesture to restore goodwill.
Kia could make lemonade out of lemons on this mess, but the company seems to lack imagination or concern for its existing customers.
They could install a sizeable capacitor in there, and give any thief a horrific shock. That might cure their sticky fingers.
You could install a hidden kill switch that would disable the fuel pump or ignition system. At least you will be more confident that your car will be waiting for you.
Back in my grad-school days of the mid-90’s, I drove a beater VW Fox. My anti-theft option when parking in sketchy neighborhoods was to pull the easily-accessible fuel pump relay under the dash cover and put it in my pocket. The Fox was never stolen, but it did get broken into once.
How about holding the thieves responsible?
See my comment above.
Too bad they didn’t cheap out even further and return to distributors. Nothing immobilized a pre OBD2 car better than a missing distributor rotor.
I bought a used Hyundai that didn’t have an immobilizer, I guess I should have researched whether my car came with one, and should have known that vulnerability would pop up five years later.
Yes, you should have known a car without an immobilizer is easier to steal than one that has an immobilizer. You should have taken that into account when buying a car if that was important to you.
Hyundai wasn’t the only automaker selling cars without immobilizers in this era. They just happened to be on that had a tik tok video go viral about the venerability.
My issue isn’t so much the lack of an immobilizer as it is producing a bunch of cars that can started by jamming a random object into the key cylinder. I’d argue that part doesn’t work as advertised.
Like many security features it inconveniences the rightful owner than the knowledgeable thief
Its the lack of immobilzer that does this. Other than that, basically all ignitions are just a fancy lock in front of a plastic swivel that connects different wires. The USB fits that plastic swivel. They couldn’t just jam the usb in the key hole and take the car. They had to break the column cover and get to that swivel. And that has been true of cars forever. Thats all the ignition key has ever done. I was taught in a junkyard how to steal 90s Hondas and it was exactly the same.
Okay but that’s also the 90’s. That shouldn’t be an issue in a car from 2022 or whatever.
The cars didn’t “start by jamming a random object into the key cylinder.” (Other, American-made, cars used to do that, once the lock became worn.) The Kia thief broke the cylinder out of the column and turned the linkage that the cylinder would turn with pliers or wrench, and it turned out a USB plug made a fine socket wrench for the purpose.
Yes, punish the poors some more, and come to the aid of those blameless corporations. We need more of that right now.
There’s plenty of blame to go around here, but it’s outrageous to assume you should hold consumers responsible for the boneheaded decisions of a company they purchased a product from. Any rational person would just assume that the modern car they bought is as secure as any other.
Hyundai/Kia handled this whole thing horrifically, and even if you think they shouldn’t be on the hook, they still should’ve helped people out as a goodwill gesture. They have the dough. Instead, they did nothing, and forever tainted themselves in the minds of myself and many other people.
If we as a society want immobilizers on every car then NHTSA should have made it a requirement. Plenty of other countries have done that.
They should be a requirement! NHTSA sucks for not making it a requirement! And Hyundai/Kia also suck for not doing slightly more than the bare minimum to prevent their cars from being stolen.
Exactly. Imagine an alternate reality where ppl are saying “well you should have known your car wouldn’t warn you if your oil pressure dropped.” The average car buyer shouldn’t be expected to check for vulnerabilities that shouldn’t exist.
I disagree with this take.
I understand the personal responsibility angle you are making but a buyer should not need advanced knowledge in order to not be burned by a company.
Or to paraphrase Parks & Rec: a person shouldn’t need an advanced law degree to not be taken advantage by a multi-billion dollar corporation.
It’s been established below that the immobilizer wasn’t always on the window sticker even today and there are potential inaccuracies as well such as Kia’s “center locking differential” as it’s called on the window sticker actually being a clutchpack and not a differential that locks at all.
The theft epidemic came about due to the intersection of no immobilizer and a flimsy ignition lock, either one would have largely mitigated the concern but Hyundai and Kia chose to cheap out in both ways.
I understand the appeal of “oh it’s technically legal” but a buyer cannot be expected to ask detailed technical questions like “is there an immobilizer and if not, can you remove the steering column cover so that I may verify the ignition lock is secure?”
or
“are the wires in the braking, HVAC modules properly specced?”
“Sorry your Sorento burned down, you should have known to ask if the supplier may have skimped on the wiring for fan speed 3!” (this is a real recall by the way)
Would a “reasonable buyer” know to ask if their bZ4X’s wheels were secured properly by design?
A “reasonable buyer” likely doesn’t even know to ask about wet belts in their F-150.
And even if they do know to ask, will they get accurate information?
Immobilizers were standard in other passenger cars of the era, even the cheapest Versa or Mitsubishi.
I try to cover all my bases myself, track warranty terms, keep evidence, etc. but you can’t know everything about everything you buy. You will become that “reasonable buyer” one way or another, in one product category or another.
In all of your examples, the failures are direct failures of the vehicle. There is no third party actions involved. The wires, I assume you are getting at a melted wire failure. The burned down Sorento, is again a wiring failure that occurs naturally (and the OEM is legally responsible for it via the recall). Wheels falling off is a side effect of driving the vehicle. Wet belt failures are an engineering failure.
For those to be good proxies, they would require a third party taking an illegal action to create the actual concern.
Someone stripped bare my fan speed 3 wires and the car caught fire.
Someone took all the bolts out of my hub and the whole thing fell off when I was driving.
Someone soaked my engine belt in Mtn Dew and it broke.
Those are proxies for thieves stealing a car and blaming the OEM. Would you blame the OEM for those other failures, even if it only took 10 seconds to do them because “they made it too easy”?
The general consensus that I see here among those blaming buyers are that it is a matter of “personal responsibility” that was not exercised when purchasing an affected Hyundai or Kia vehicle.
Such “personal responsibility” when exercised by a non-expert but otherwise reasonable buyer could not have foreseen such circumstances including the above “failures of the vehicle” and I think arguing semantics about requiring a third-party act in that regard is pointless when approached from the “personal responsibility” angle.
Especially with immobilizers and plastic ignition locks were not being listed on the window sticker at the time and previous 00’s Hyundai’s and Kia’s DID come with immobilizers in key-start models before they were removed.
(checked an 09 Borrego window sticker, no mention of the immobilizer it did have on it)
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not require an immobilizer explicitly but do require the prevention of a vehicle from being started without a key.
It’s not unreasonable for a reasonable buyer to expect a contemporary Hyundai or Kia to be continuing to follow the industry convention of standard immobilizers from the cheapest Versa to the priciest Phantom.
Especially with no customer-visible changes to indicate that while your 2009 Borrego LX had one standard, your 2014 Sorento LX does not.
The question then becomes, and this is not settled or decided, does deciding to delete an industry standard and accepted anti-theft feature in favor of trivially-bypassed security measures comply with the letter and spirit of the relevant FMVSS regulations?
You misconstrue one key element of my arguments. At no time have I blamed the buyers. That is other commenters. I hold both the company AND the buyers free from blame. I agree the buyers didn’t know and its unlikely for them to ask. I blame only the illegal actors, the thieves. Because the only party I hold responsible is the party actively taking an action, the third party action argument is critical to my perspective.
Ah, I see! This comment will be about my opinion that the company receive some blame if not more.
In which case, my opinion is that a vehicle – as it is being designed from the ground up – should ideally account for foreseeable, reasonable circumstances and meet regulations.
Fires, wheels falling off, etc. are generally regarded as bad and are legally clearly cut (I believe) and are ideally minimized but I will also place ease-of-theft as one of those many considerations internal conversations must have been had about.
While I won’t necessarily blame someone forgetting to lock a door for a burglary itself, I will still assert it was their responsibility.
Recent months/years have shown that amoral corporations will do as they do to save a buck and so will teens/criminals/humans/[insert group here] do as they do for fun/money/clout/etc.
Ignoring how it may be in reality, I generally prefer consequences to be meted out to both here and I include Hyundai and Kia since as an entity, they had elected to save a buck by choosing security-through-obscurity and moving into a legal grey area. Then it blew up in customer faces.
I believe “risky” decisions with rather clear potential outcomes should be penalized heavily especially when it affects as many as it does. Nobody can predict the future but I’d prefer due diligence become more important rather than cutting-now and anything down the pipeline being just the “cost of doing business”
Thats a pretty fair analysis of the whole scenario. In reality, I agree with basically everything you’ve said here. My non-reality wish is “capitalism with heart”, which we don’t see much of today. So in that fake world, the company would see the unintended outcome and choose to accept some amount of the burden created and do something about it.
While I know that is unlikely from anyone bigger than a mom and pop style company, its what I would prefer. But I have serious concerns with creating laws and legal responsibilities around the concept as I think it is a dangerous slippery slope that can easily lead to overregulation in the wrong places.
I think it can still work: a well run company could anticipate that such a shortcut would be a huge liability for the reputation of the brand. Same reason OEMs continue to rust proof cars even though they could sell a few hundred thousand units before anyone noticed.
We’re acting like part of the purchase process is the sales rep asking “do you want one with the immobilizer or not?” In the real world, buyers can rarely get every option they want. Prior to the exploitation of this vulnerability, would anyone really pick the more secure car even if it had $5k of extra options you don’t want, is a color you don’t like, and so on? I’m sure there are plenty of owners who didn’t have to deal with this mess not bc they were smart, but bc the car on the lot that day happened to have it.
My first and last jobs at the very first body shop that I’ve worked for was a Hyundai that was stolen because of this issue. Twice.
The first time the owner had just bought the car and it got stolen off the street that night, the second time the car got stolen while the owner was at a concert.
So now everyone will just have their windows smashed in because thieves won’t know the new ignition cylinders are installed?
Insurance rates are likely to remain high I would guess.
I still don’t understand how this (and other questionable events) didn’t lead to more damage to the reputation of these brands.
I was thinking the same thing. There needs to be something VERY visible added to the column so that the thieves won’t even bother busting the window.
At the very least, a window sticker of some sort.
They already added a window sticker to both side windows when they pushed the software update. The software update, as I understand it, did little to prevent further thefts. Another sticker might suffice, or it might simply be a case of the boy who cried wolf, and thieves will ignore them.
Clearly then, the solution is to weld quarter-inch plate steel over all the windows and drive by periscope. 😉
There is no downside for them to bust the window so I doubt a sticker will do a damn thing.
Thieves generally want to do their thieving as fast as possible. There’s at least some downside to committing an obvious crime (window smashing) in a public area
I’ve always wondered the same thing about their reputation. The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that Hyundai/Kia already sit firmly at the bottom of the market; only Mitsubishi is below them. So there is no place for them to further sink to. The whole theft issue would certainly make me think twice about purchasing a H/K product, even if it had an immobilizer, simply because I don’t want my window getting smashed and my steering column torn apart. It does not appear that many consumers share my sentiment.
I would argue that though their work on the design and assortment they have boosted their place in the market through a lot of hard work. I don’t know how the average consumer views them but their standing in product reviews and general enthusiast attitudes about the vehicles seems quite good.
I would also say they are viewed as being better/higher than anything Stellantis has to offer except maybe Jeep (speaking of blunders that should damage reputation…).
But I keep seeing stories about engines that catch on fire and nothing is done, the Kia Boyz story is one that just keeps on giving but overall quality of the product (or perception) doesn’t seem to take a hit. It’s weird.
I think the general public can forgive one “mistake.” It takes a while to build the kind of negative reputation Stelantis has. So yeah it doesn’t matter much now, however it very well might if they have any more big screwups.
Hyundai/KVI are sort of the GM of Asia. Their decent vehicles are mixed with loads of defective models, but people keep buying them.
I find it wild that immobilizers aren’t required in the US. They’ve been required on new cars in Canada since 2007. Nearly 20 years!
Canada is a nanny state.
We’re not a state at all, despite the best efforts of unhinged, sepia-toned, foreign dictators.
state1 of 2
nounˈstāt
…
: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign
…
Are we considered sovereign, from the view of the US? It’s a question I’ve asked of The Autopian staff repeatedly when 51st state jokes were being thrown around in TMD and other articles.
But if we’re going by dictionary definitions, the US is the Nanny State:
We barely even think about you.
And while the US has certainly gone done the nanny state road, the idea that we are more of a nanny state than Canada is truly absurd. You’d have to be utterly delusional to believe that.
Maybe you should a bit more?
Some perspective on how other countries are trying to move forward rather than repeat the worst parts of their history might be good for most americans.
Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to cope with the rising authoritarianism.
We much prefer to learn the hard way. And then forget, so we can learn again.
Not according to the POTUS and the US Tourism industry. Or Lockheed Martin for that matter.
Nobody thinks about you bitter hosers sitting up there sharpening your skates. Not even us Minnesotans.
The 51st state thing was, I presume, a joke. Most Americans have learned not to take anything Trump says very seriously. He just rambles.
We would take Alberta, but the rest of you commies aren’t wanted.
99.9% of Americans do not concur with that comment.
Sorry, we’re too busy experiencing TRUE freedom like no healthcare nor consumer protections. Unlike COMMUNIST Canada! /s
Don’t forget the freedom to get our cars needlessly stolen. Worth it.
i have never heard the term “Zinc-reinforced” until today
That is basically saying your kitchen dish sponge is pasta crumb reinforced.
pot metal fortified!
Isn’t Pot Metal just a bunched of stoned Metalheads?
RIP, Hyundimebag Darrell
In a strange way, they already paid another price — at least for me.
A couple years ago I was shopping the 2023 Santa Fe (before they turned it into a 3-row shipping container), which is a criminally underrated car with the 2.5t and DCT.
But when I called my insurance agent to check on rates, it was insanely high…on par with full luxury brand models, if not more. The agent explained that the thefts had spiked the rates on Kiundais, but I replied “That shouldn’t affect the models with push-button start” (which had immobilizers already)
The actuarial detail didn’t go down to the trim level, only the model. And on top of that, there was still a rash of vandalism by kids thinking the USB trick applied to all of the models. Yeesh.
Same problem with a 2010 Kia Soul. Thieves don’t know the fine details, and insurance doesn’t care. Window was smashed but the car wasn’t covered because state minimum liability was all we could get on it. Most companies wouldn’t even quote it.
Crazy how this is just a mere fraction of what VW had to pay for dieselgate. While I certainly don’t want to absolve or minimize the damage VW did, Hyundais damage feels much more direct to people. Vehicle thefts absolutely spiked like crazy in my mid-sized (and poor) city. Numerous stories about how people couldn’t get to work because their car was wrecked after getting stolen, and things like that.
This is pocket change at the level that I’m surprised it made the news (considering how many auto settlements have happened in recent years). Edit: I’m referring to a few million in penalties, I assume the “half a billion” is maybe an estimate on the repair costs?
Chump change. Ford has exceeded 140 recalls this year and is in the billions with a capital B. Quality is (not) job one.
At Ford, Kwality is Job 1,000,567,890,236,298.
Just like GM/Toyota/Honda/RAM…
In Dieselgate, VW was flouting the law (and causing environmental damage).
In KiaHyundaigate, the actual damages were not the fault of the auto manufacturers. They’re the fault of the individuals who stole the vehicles. There’s a difference between “Making a car that’s easy to steal” and “Stealing” – VW did the latter (if you subscribe to the notion that they profited from not having to make exhaust-injection systems for their cars), Kia/Hyundai did the former.
In other words, it’s a matter of (literal) accountability. If I leave my door barely-locked, it is still the thief that’s responsible for stealing from me; not me, not Schlage, not the local PD.
What if Schlage sold you a lock that it turned out could be defeated by a 12 yr old with a paperclip? Consumers should be able to presume products work. It shouldn’t be on me to study up on lock designs before heading to Home Depot.
Seriously, if I’m supposed to check into every one of the hundreds of subsystems on every car I look at, including stuff that’s basically been standard equipment for a decade, I’m just gonna walk everywhere.
The car filled its primary function, namely, A to B transportation.
I mean, sure it should. There are a vast array of locks with a vast array of insurance and safety implications. Most people don’t research, and most home locks are easily defeated (most interior locks can be defeated with a dime or slotted screwdriver).
I mean, interior locks are designed to be defeated by easily accessible items — ppl want quick access when their kid accidentally locks themselves in a room. It’s a feature, not a flaw.
The whole point of a brand is that I can rely on their reputation and will pay the premium to save from having to do the work myself. Is Schlage the best lock? I seriously doubt it. But I do expect it to put up a fight.
I just bought probably 30 things at the supermarket. By your logic I should also be double checking supply chains and manufacturing standards for each of them. Maybe independent testing so I am not reliant on the nutritional and allergy info they provide? Double check the dairy’s pasteurization equipment to make sure it’s been calibrated recently?
A world where it is on consumers to research everything would be hell.
That said, I have no sympathy for anyone who buys an unsecured Kia today and gets upset when their car gets jacked — yes they should have known.
Somewhere there’s a line of what a consumer is expected to know and we can quibble about things right on either side of that line. But I should be able to expect a car from a major manufacturer to prevail over a child with a usb stick the same way I can expect my cup of Starbucks to not be laced with arsenic.
What VW did was illegal. What Hyundai did is not.
Hyundai gave buyers the choice to buy cars with immobilisers or without. Lots of people chose to save money and buy a cheaper car. Hyundai should not be paying a dime to compensate buyers for making that choice.
Unpopular, but I agree with this view. Hyundai made cars that were as easy to steal as cars from, say, 10+ years earlier. I don’t think they should be penalized for the thieves’ actions, it feels like a bad precedent to blame the automaker after the fact, simply for not making the cars harder to steal. Sloppy? A little. Criminal? Not at all. And yet another example of how social media is hurting us..
Crazy how far this precedent could go.
Today most cars come with lane keep – but not all of them. Someone chooses to buy a car without it and crashes. Is that the manufacturers fault for making it optional?
Same with the button to disable lane keep or auto braking. It is a manufacturers fault if someone turns off a safety feature and then crashes?
I often wonder about that while driving my wife’s car that has the lane keeping feature as it follows any marks it finds in the road that are more or less parallel to traffic as being lane markers.
If the car follows some random lines painted on the street by Con Edison before they dig up a gas pipe or follows some old trolley tracks that are erupting through the asphalt and veerers off into some pedestrians, who is at fault? Is it the driver for not turning the safety feature off? Is it for the manufacturer for having the safety feature too diligently follow lines on the road? Is it Con Ed‘s fault for painting extra lines on the pavement? Is it Mayor LaGuardia‘s fault for paving over the trolley tracks in a big hurry back in the 1940s?
I know that it is the driver’s responsibility up until now, but as what is loosely termed AI takes over responsibility for steering the car, but any decent lawyer for the estate of whoever I run over is going to take one look at my bank account versus Con Ed or the city of New York or the automobile manufacture before they decide who to sue.
And I consider myself to be a reasonably skillful driver and have learned to expect the wheels to fall off, it’s happened to me five times, or the steering tie rod to fall off happen to me once in addition to the front wheel coming off a car and the front wheel, coming off a motorcycle, or just catching fire, happened twice, or maybe somebody left a transmission in the middle of the freeway, happened once, or cows, I lost count of cows in the road.
So the steering wheel suddenly turning on its own and trying to steer the car into a jersey barrier was a surprise even to me who assumes that anything may happen at anytime. I even stick my toe behind the gas pedal in an unfamiliar car because I’ve had the throttle spring fail. Poltergeist phenomenon in the steering didn’t appear on the lint until recently.
Oh did I mention brakes failing ?
Expecting such product knowledge is crazy.
The info is on the window sticker.
Please, show me a window sticker that specifically lists “immobilizer” that doesn’t reflect some sort of aftermarket add-on.
Can’t link pictures but this Sonata window sticker clearly lists “immobilizer” in the interior section.
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/13124435-2025-hyundai-sonata
Thats for a 2025, modern one probably added in response to this crapfest.
Here are 2 for 2016 souls, the base which wouldnt have an immobilizer, and one with the pushbutton start, meaning it does.
Base: https://monroneylabels.com/cars/6469193-2016-kia-soul
Higher Trim:https://monroneylabels.com/cars/9552796-2016-kia-soul
And a 2024 trax, just as reference, showing no immobilizer on the monroney for another cheap car.
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/9643332-2024-chevrolet-trax
To me it falls under a recall worthy issue. They made a car with a big security flaw simply to save a buck.
Your higher trim Soul lists keyless entry not push button start and proximity key
Their generic Hyundai example is from 2020 and has both push button listed and the immobilizer. (That is a year before the whole Kia Boyz thing went viral)
Heres the top trim. Again from the years affected.
No info on the immobilizer on the sticker. Air filter, yes. Immobilizer no.
That’s all 3 trim levels. None of which mention having or not having an immobilizer
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/919462-2018-kia-soul
As another reference, here’s a 2017 versa. Which does have an immobilizer, but is not mentioned on there either. Do call out the crank windows though
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/14748213-2017-nissan-versa-sedan
Did the 2016 Soul even have the option of an immobilizer? It is not on the list of Hyundai vehicles for the software fix
https://hyundaiantitheft.com/
Since you seem to have access to free labels does a 2016 Sonata list an immobiliser for push button models?
I got the software update on my Kia and they put a sticker on both the driver and front passenger windows. It’s an image of a car with a padlock over it and it says “this vehicle equipped with Kia anti-theft logic.” I don’t think anyone leaves the monroney on the window, do they?
No, but lots of people look up the Monroney when they are shopping used cars to see the vehicle spec. Some buyers fold it up and leave it in the glovebox.
(My Acura had the window sticker in the car)
I like to keep the sticker with the car too. I just thought maybe you two were debating about a different sticker is all.
Wonder if the new, new sticker will say something like “ZINC REINFORCED!”
I don’t think I’ve ever known anyone who looked up the Monroney. Maybe gearheads like present company. It’s never even occurred to me. I think most used buyers just want to know if it runs reliably, which the seller always assures you that it does. Spec? Does it come with an engine and wheels?
Nope. heres two. one with and one without pushbutton start.
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/679700-2016-hyundai-sonata
https://monroneylabels.com/cars/2755339-2016-hyundai-sonata
Again, they didnt inform consumers of the presence or lack of this equipment.
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.
Curious when they added it.
I don’t think it was an option, for the base Soul (mine is 2015). And the higher trim levels came with pushbutton start (which had immobilizer).
Oh come on. It also says it has a 150a alternator. Is the consumer supposed to know whether that is sufficient?
PLUS this isn’t even relevant unless the cars in question said “no immobilizer” on their sticker. I’ve noticed the window sticker doesn’t list an oil drain plug as an included feature. Should I know to assume the car will come without one?
Overall this is like saying a company is in the right bc they stated the policy on page 36 of their terms and conditions.
Baloney. Simply not true.
See below
That doesn’t help used car buyers
You can go online and get a window sticker printed for used cars.
https://monroneylabels.com/
The average car buyer probably doesn’t know they can spend $10 to see the original window sticker, and probably doesn’t see a reason to.
Yes, the average car buyer (new or used) is very unformed. That is on them.
Most dealers will print a carfax and window sticker for a used car if you ask. Plenty do it without asking. I’ve bought 3 used vehicles in the last 4 years and everyone of them has included a carfax and window sticker.
Uhhhmmmm. What? VW very deliberately manufactured cars to lie to the govt to avoid meeting government requirements. Kia left a part out, one they have no legal obligation to install in the first place, to make a cheap model and then lied to no one about it.
I know terrible things resulted from it, but why aren’t we blaming the assholes stealing the cars?
Who said we aren’t blaming them? But it takes two to tango. If the cars had simply been built to include parts that the rest of the industry had been including for decades, the situation wouldn’t have.
Why are you absolving the greedy corporations?
And again, I’m not saying what happened at VW was the same. It wasn’t. It’s just mind boggling that they got slapped with a penalty 50x worse. The law doesn’t typically just take intentions into mind, it also takes outcomes. Just because you didn’t intend to kill someone, doesn’t mean you can.
I’m absolving them of legal responsibility because they literally don’t have any. They obeyed all regulations. They didn’t mislead anyone.
VW got a huge penalty because they LIED. to the GOVERNMENT. Who gets very upset about that kind of thing and has the leverage to punish for it.
The law very much takes intention in mind. Its called Mens Rea in the legal field. And its used in your kill someone example. Mens Rea is the difference between manslaughter and homicide. And homicide gets much worse punishment.
However, killing someone accidentally is a poor proxy. It is illegal to take a life, except in the defense of another life, even accidentally. It is perfectly legal to make a stealable product. Unintended but totally legal consequences are only rarely thrown back on company associated with them. Particularly when it takes a whole third party’s actions to create the unintended consequence.
The fact they settled for half a billion dollars casts some pretty strong doubt on that. You don’t settle for half a billion, because winning a legal battle is a heck of a lot cheaper than that.
And yet, even if you don’t intend to kill someone, you still can get charged with manslaughter.
Trust me, class action legal fees can easily cost them that much. And in the American legal system there are no guarantees. In the end, all it takes a judge who hates big corporations to rule against them regardless of evidence. This was nothing more than a stategic ROI analysis.
And again, killing someone for any reason is illegal unless defense of another life. So killing someone on accident is still BREAKING THE LAW. Making a stealable product is NOT BREAKING THE LAW.
The Attorney Generals to 34 states disagree with your legal analysis.
In 43 states the Attorney General is elected. I have no doubt plenty want to “stick it to the greedy corporations”. That is a good line most places.
On the other hand this particular “greedy corporation” passed on the savings to the customers – and is now getting hit with a lawsuit for giving the customer a choice.
Funny how some of the people complaining about the cost of new cars and how they include all kinds of stupid mandates are arguing that the customer should have been forced by Hyundai to buy an immobilizer.
You can expect this to cause more options to become standard in new vehicles and more buttons giving drivers the option to toggle safety features on and off to disappear.
I respect your confidence that the only reason an AG would file a law suit is because of actual obvious illegality. I disagree, but I respect that level of faith in the system.
Oh this is good.
The commentariat here is something special. Who knew?
Dieselgate was an intentional subversion of the law, this is just Hyundai/Kia being cheapskates. When determining settlements in a lawsuit, punitive damages for intentional actions usually make up the biggest share by far.