The Law Office of Jason Ingber has filed a strong opposition in the case of Cynthia Boland v. Hyundai Motor America, exposing Hyundai’s repeated attempts to use forced arbitration clauses to silence California consumers. The case highlights how Hyundai tries to push Lemon Law and consumer fraud claims out of court by burying arbitration terms deep within digital service agreements that most drivers never knowingly accept.
Background: Hyundai’s Hidden Arbitration Scheme
In August 2021, Plaintiff Cynthia Boland leased a Hyundai NEXO from a California dealership. Like many Hyundai customers, she was required to enroll in Bluelink, a digital connectivity service promoted as essential to operating the vehicle. However, Hyundai later claimed that activating Bluelink also meant agreeing to binding arbitration, effectively waiving her right to bring any claims in court.
Ms. Boland never saw, signed, or agreed to any arbitration terms. No dealership representative explained that enrolling in Bluelink or accepting warranty materials would waive her constitutional right to a jury trial. She believed Bluelink was simply a technology feature, not a legal contract with hidden clauses.
Fighting Back Against Forced Arbitration
Hyundai attempted to compel Ms. Boland’s claims into arbitration, relying on two alleged agreements:
-
A Connected Services Agreement (CSA) tied to Bluelink activation
-
An arbitration clause buried in the vehicle’s warranty booklet
Our firm’s opposition demonstrated that neither agreement was valid or enforceable. Hyundai failed to prove Ms. Boland ever received or agreed to the CSA, and the company’s witness lacked personal knowledge of her specific transaction.
The court filing cited multiple decisions rejecting Hyundai’s identical arguments, including Hageman v. Hyundai Motor America (C.D. Cal. 2024), where the same Connected Services Agreement was deemed unconscionable and described as “patently absurd.” The ruling emphasized that Bluelink terms could not reasonably cover serious vehicle defect claims.
Consumer Rights at Stake
This lawsuit underscores a growing problem in consumer protection: automakers using hidden arbitration clauses to block public accountability. Arbitration often favors corporations, limits discovery, and prevents consumers from joining together in class actions.
Ms. Boland’s case seeks to protect the rights of vehicle owners to pursue legitimate Lemon Law, fraud, and misrepresentation claims in open court, not behind closed arbitration proceedings controlled by the manufacturer.
Protecting California Consumers
At The Law Office of Jason Ingber, we fight for transparency and fairness in the automotive industry. Our firm is actively challenging automakers that rely on deceptive arbitration agreements to shield themselves from responsibility.
We represent California consumers in Lemon Law, product defect, and consumer fraud cases against major manufacturers including Hyundai, Toyota, Volkswagen, and others.
If you were misled about your vehicle’s safety, reliability, or warranty rights, or pressured into arbitration you never agreed to, contact us today for a free consultation. We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.