Slashdot Mirror


Volkswagen Sued For Violating State Environmental Statutes With Dieselgate (theverge.com)

The attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland are suing Volkswagen for violating state environmental regulations with its diesel emissions cheating scandal. The states say that the car company has violated their air quality laws, combined with some sort of anti-fraud measure for the defeat mechanisms to bypass emissions testing. The move comes after many states agreed to a $14.7 billion settlement for violating consumer protection and EPA and California state environmental regulations. The Verge reports: "Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche defrauded thousands of Massachusetts consumers, polluted our air, and damaged our environment and then, to make matters worse, plotted a massive cover-up to mislead environmental regulators," said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in a statement. This was echoed by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who released his own statement saying "the allegations against Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche reveal a culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law and the protection of public health and the environment."

123 comments

  1. Keep it up bureaucrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Volkswagen will just file bankruptcy!

    1. Re:Keep it up bureaucrats! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      so?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Keep it up bureaucrats! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      And why would that be a huge problem? Presumably it would file chapter 11 and the owners would lose their shirts but the company would continue to operate after reorganization. This is not an absurd outcome.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Test mode all the time? by magarity · · Score: 1

    The thing I haven't seen explained well is if the software detects the car is being tested and emits only the allowed level of pollutants, why not just an update that runs in that mode all the time? Does something overheat and catch fire or what?

    1. Re:Test mode all the time? by hwstar · · Score: 1

      The car in test mode probably has a reduced level of performance. The way to combat this is to test performance against the performance specs on a random sample of 1-2 year old vehicles at the smog test station using a dynamometer.

    2. Re:Test mode all the time? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Informative

      It detects that it's running on the dynamometer. You'd have to somehow run it on an actual street to get the non-test-mode results.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Test mode all the time? by magarity · · Score: 1

      The car in test mode probably has a reduced level of performance. The way to combat this is to test performance against the performance specs on a random sample of 1-2 year old vehicles at the smog test station using a dynamometer.

      There's no "probably" about it; that's the whole cause of this mess; the emissions controls in test mode absolutely have lower performance. And all the news is that any fix is going to shoot the performance. So, anyway, back to my question: why isn't the fix just to change the software instead of this talk of modifications to the physical emissions controls? There must be some reason, but I haven't figured it out yet.

    4. Re:Test mode all the time? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      The test equipment for mobile operation is probably pretty expensive and if you wanted to test many cars it would need to be moved from car to car to get a representative sample.

      I haven't seen how the system actually knows the car is being tested on a dynamometer. Does the system know the rear wheels aren't turning? That might be easy for a 4-wheel drive car but I'm guessing the VWs are front wheel drive only. Using GPS would also be unreliable. Anybody know?

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    5. Re:Test mode all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change a conditional and people can (with some effort) change it back. Easier for the state governments to demand that the system be physically incapable of operating in full-performance mode than to wage the horrible PR war that would result in trying to prosecute car owners who re-enabled performance mode.

      Also, VW doesn't want to deal with the PR war that would occur if their diesel owners had to experience just how crippled testing mode is. They want to rig up an intermediate state that offends everyone slightly rather than deeply enraging anyone.

    6. Re:Test mode all the time? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      The test mode cuts the performance about 20%. IOW, the poor bastards bought a real POS.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Test mode all the time? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I remember a commercial back a few years from VW. Advertising their Clean Diesel cars.
      Two guys doing house work, one rather nice looking and the other kinda Dorky. The nice looking guy had the VW and the Dorky guy had a Prius.
      In general the point was the VW had nearly the same gas milage as the Prius with all the extra power of a Diesel.

      However turning on this test mode reduces efficiency. So to get the same mileages they will need less power or keep the power for less gas mileage. So in general that Dorky looking guy still had the better deal, as his Prius had the environmental bonus he was looking for in his car, while the VW owner just got a false presence of getting the better deal.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Test mode all the time? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It detects that it's running on the dynamometer. You'd have to somehow run it on an actual street to get the non-test-mode results.

      Unless you use a four-wheel dyno, and then exceed the test procedure, in which case it doesn't do any such thing and then you get real results. TFLCar did this, see Youtube.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Test mode all the time? by guppysap13 · · Score: 1

      The test mode does have reduced levels of performance, but the bigger issue is the durability of the emissions control system. To lower costs, VW designed the emissions components to survive for the life of the vehicle (semis have parts which are easy to access and replace, but are expensive). In cheat mode, the emissions controls are cycled more frequently and the components will most likely fail before the end of the life of the vehicle. Replacing some of them costs upwards of $6k, and they're required by US law to be under warranty for 8 years/80,000 miles (I might have the exact warranty term wrong, but it's a lot).

      Automotive News has a quick description of the different emissions control systems: http://www.autonews.com/article/20150925/OEM11/150929855/how-vws-diesel-emissions-system-works. With their newest engines, VW can actually meet emissions requirements and have parts last for the life of the car. They've just stupidly turned down the dosing rate of diesel exhaust fluid used with SCR so that it needs to be refilled every 10k miles when the car has service, instead of every ~6k miles as required to be compliant.

    10. Re:Test mode all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody know?

      Yes, but come on. Just look it up.

    11. Re:Test mode all the time? by eepok · · Score: 1

      Because people want their Lotto tickets. A recent survey showed that a majority of VW owners don't want the problem fixed; they want full refunds for the original prices of their vehicles. They're hoping to strike it big with a class action lawsuit and get a new car out of it despite them consciously experiencing harm.

      It's the American way.

    12. Re:Test mode all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .

      I ran a 8 year experiment back in the 80s when one of the dealerships was singing the praises of their Clean Diesel cars. Tacked a couple to the sunny side of a shed, and staked a couple more on the ground. Ten years later my wife took them down and threw them in the recycle when we moved out of that house.

      Statute of limitations on false advertising had already expired.

    13. Re:Test mode all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love posts like this!

      Corporations can do no wrong! It's just people looking for a payday without working for it! How dare they complain about being sold cars that don't meet emissions standards! People should just suck it up and install the ROM that reduces performance by 20%!

    14. Re:Test mode all the time? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The test mode does have reduced levels of performance

      I think it might be more accurate to say that the "road" mode had better performance. I believe that both the MPG figures and the emissions figures are based on the test mode. The ads hinted that, unlike other cars, real-world ("road" mode) MPG was better than the quoted MPG, unlike other cars.

      Road mode wasn't engaged unless the ECU was sure the car wasn't running on a dyno -- in other words, test mode was the default.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    15. Re:Test mode all the time? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So basically the test mode is exactly what is in my Mitsubishi Outlander when I press the eco-mode button. Which I normally leave it in 99.99% of the time (I have run with it off to test the difference, once, it is quite noticeable). Question is, is the vehicle also more fuel efficient in this mode and thus can it be forced to be active all of the time for the customers who choose that. Likely the engine management system kicks in this mode when the vehicle sustains revs with a specific range of revs for a given length of time, neither accelerating or decelerating, so revving the motor could produce honest outcomes. An honest detailed response on the programming is required from VW to produce an acceptable outcome.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Test mode all the time? by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. This is a common misconception. If you put it on a dyno and drove it the way normal people drive instead of the highly artificial way the testing procedure does, you'd get correct (i.e. dirty) results. If you somehow managed to drive it around on the street precisely within the testing envelope, you'd get clean results.

  3. Pierce the corporate veil by hwstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For blatant environmental disregard such as this, the corporation should not offer protection to the officers and directors. The corporate veil should be pierced, and the state should go after the officers and directors both criminally and civilly. The corporate protection from liability should just be there to protect against legal action arising from unforeseen circumstances in the evolution of a company. In this case, the emissions rules were purposefully disregarded and, there should be a heavy price to pay for that.

    1. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Although since they act on behalf of the share holders, maybe they need to be liable too.

      Put some responsibility back in to the corporate world

    2. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The shareholders will be, at least in the short term, as the stock will take an inevitable hit. If VW is sufficiently pummeled in the courts, then the shareholders are likely to lose their entire investment.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You realize VW is largely owned by a German state (and the Porsche family)? Good luck with that, you'll be suing them in their own courtroom.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by sittingnut · · Score: 1, Insightful

      iow you are saying, since this particular crime(unlike say crimes that led to financial crisis) is offends against western elite's(herds's) morality, it should be punished severely, ignoring due process, disregarding long established precedents and case law (all of which have solid well argued rationales), and with total disregard for obvious consequence of arbitrarily removing immunity of directors(collapse of the one of the greatest inventions of west, limited liability company ).

      short sighted much?

    5. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think anyone said that the flagrant level of wrongdoing here should be treated unlike other formulaically similar situations, which are off-topic, but nonetheless also had parties fully deserving of being prosecuted directly as individuals, who also still largely have not faced justice. I don't think anyone is saying that at all. You may be confused because they're not talking about stuff that is off topic.

    6. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used the would "should" five times.

      Unfortunately, the real world doesn't care how many times you say "should." In the real world, the super-rich are beholden to different laws than the rest of us, and are largely unaccountable to us. Say "should" all you want, you won't change these facts.

    7. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Limited liability should never cover employees, board members, or activist owners.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by idontgno · · Score: 2

      You realize VW is largely owned by a German state....

      Commonly-believed urban legend. Volkswagen AG's only governmental holder is the State of Lower Saxony, at 12.7% of the shares.

      Claiming VW is owned by the German federal government is like saying ExxonMobil is owned by the United States of America because CalPers holds shares of it in their pension fund.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      True, but this is downright criminal. And jail time is the only punishment that's going cause any real change...

    10. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize VW is largely owned by a German state (and the Porsche family)? Good luck with that, you'll be suing them in their own courtroom.

      What, you saying they won't give us justice?

      Then we'll invade them and occupy them, seize their resources and salt the earth, so all shall know the price of treachery.

    11. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      You can't hold people responsible who had nothing to do with the crime. Shareholders have no direct power over most corporate decisions. The Board and management could potentially be held liable, to be sure, because they actually have governance and decision-making roles.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      What's so great about immunity of directors? As we see here, it encourages violation of the law. If they get caught, they don't suffer any consequences, so why not take risks to maximise profits?

    13. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so great about immunity of directors?

      With people like you around, /. has decided that ignorance is bliss.
      Pity. Used to be different.

    14. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm..
      At least one thing is clear; You are confused.

    15. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shareholders have no direct power over most corporate decisions.

      they have total power over their own decision making process and they decided to invest in criminals

    16. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MitchDev · · Score: 0

      They are the "owners" they ARE responsible.

    17. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize VW is largely owned by a German state (and the Porsche family)? Good luck with that, you'll be suing them in their own courtroom.

      state lawsuit will happen in the state. germans are not tried in germany for crimes they commit in the us, they are tried in the us

    18. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Although since they act on behalf of the share holders, maybe they need to be liable too.

      Put some responsibility back in to the corporate world

      Sorry, all the "free trade" treaties have totally eliminated that possibility.

    19. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's do that every time politicians fuck up too.

    20. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qatar owns 17%

    21. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the shareholders can sue VW as well. They lost value in their investment due to fraudulent actions of the company.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No, suit was filed in Albany, NY. You don't need to file where the company is owned.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    23. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This is why there's a difference between negligence and criminal negligence. Intentions matter. And criminal negligence needs to be punished by prison terms.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You do understand that for a criminal prosecution to proceed, intent has to be demonstrated. Since most shareholders are not in a position to make any significant decisions, there's no intent, and thus no prosecution possible. You can't go after people just because they own some stock.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Negligence can be a crime, as can conspiracy to hide a crime. Make the shareholders more responsible for knowing what goes on in a company they invest in. Their dollars make it possible, so they ARE responsible.

    26. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In both cases you would still need to prove intent, not to mention means. Just because someone owns shares in a business doesn't mean they are in any position to be held criminally responsible. It would be like prosecuting the members of a church because the deacon is a child molester, for the apparent crime of attending that church.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      If you lend your car to someone, and they kill/damage someone or their property, YOU can be held responsible for damages as owner of the car. Shareholders are Owners of the business, therefore, they are responsible for it and its actions

    28. Re:Pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Although since they act on behalf of the share holders, maybe they need to be liable too.

      Put some responsibility back in to the corporate world

      Separation of ownership from liability is one of the key foundations of Western economic growth and has been for centuries. See any general text on economic history.

      The alternative is partnership-type arrangements (with separable and total liability), and that's a huge disaster not just for the participants, but also for society.

      Further, most societies already have laws allowing action against owners that coerce corporate executives into breaking the law. The problem in most cases is not the 'owners', who have very little say over actual policy. In theory it is possible to sue if the corporate executives fail to comply with the papers of incorporation, in practice the only people to significantly benefit in such cases are the lawyers.

      Corporate stockholders generally have no more say over corporate policy than voters have a say over the policies of the US Congress. Less, actually, since they don't get to vote out the incumbent. They don't typically sit on the board of directors, and most stock is non-voting in any event.

      Further, even more isolation of owners from control is created by mutual funds, which hold huge numbers of different stocks. This means a given shareholder doesn't necessarily know whether or how much stock they have in any given company (or if they do find out, that information can get out of date very quickly).

      In short, what you want is entirely impractical except in very rare cases, none of which apply to the large corporations that create the most problems.

      The mutual fund executives can actually exert an unhealthy influence on companies, but the public rarely finds out about that. Probably fund executives should be barred from meeting with corporate officers - let them get information the same way the public does, and they'll have less opportunity to try to do inappropriate things.

      Also, there's no Freedom of Information act that gives access to business records. One can assert a Right to Long Term Oversight over Business in US law under the 9th Amendment, along with the Right to Ethics in Business. However, it's not really in the interests of the legal profession to acknowledge the 9th Amendment, so these fundamental rights routinely get violated. Another problem is that information can be illegally shielded under 'trade secret' laws.

      The executives of those big corporations are the problem. The vast majority of people that end up in these positions are sociopaths. There are legal options when they do inappropriate stuff, but ethics problems in law and government make it very difficult to get the bad guys, especially since executives have lots of money and are really good at lies and deception. The global nature of corporations makes things even harder, due to jurisdictional issues.

      It's not clear what the solution is. I've been shunned by other people at a workplace when I pointed out ethics problems in the past - and this happened at a company which claims to have high integrity, has a Standards of Business Conduct Program, and requires employee training every year. The fact that actually pointing out problems gets one shunned makes it very hard for even employees to fix problems. As Mr. Snowdon discovered, things are no better in the public sector, at least not in the USA.

      Probably the best solution is to limit corporation size (20k people seems reasonable), bar any acquisition of a competitor, and prohibit any person from having more than one executive or board position. You can't change human nature, but you can limit the amount of money the bad guys have access to. Campaign finance reform is also needed.

  4. Political motivation? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shortly after this started, someone reported that GM, Chrysler, and Ford performed substantially-similar to Volkswagen, with the caveat that Volkswagen was more efficient: everyone's vehicles are tuned to hit emissions standards in testing conditions, and quickly increase their output as you leave those standards; Volkswagen happened to enter a different mode of behavior under testing conditions, instead of playing the wink-and-nudge.

    Someone accused everyone involved of protectionism, trying to push foreign companies out in order to strengthen local manufacture. I think it's more that people are more forgiving of villains who twirl their moustaches at you while you interact, as they feel they've gotten a fairer deal when someone violates the spirit of the rules than if the terms were hammered out and the other guy just bluntly cheated. Same outcome, but one of these pisses people off.

    Those of us who are more level-headed (read: introverts) tend to miss the group-think and not care as much about the other guy being a dick (because of a lack of investment in squishy feelings of companionship), and so are a little less misgiving about the guy who brazenly cheated, and a little more concerned with the rules being set up such that cheating and playing by the rules are essentially the same thing, since this implies that the rules don't work (why have them at all if breaking them doesn't actually change anything?).

    So my understanding is there is a larger problem here in which everyone gets to cheat, but most people do so in an acceptable way, and this is all a bunch of feel-good measure being taken to quell people's personal feelings of unfairness, and has actually no material impact on the world. That is to say: all the stuff about polluting your air and defrauding consumers is bullshit by way of literally every alternative being both acceptable and functionally identical.

    1. Re:Political motivation? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      This is pretty smart. I wish I had mod points for you today.

    2. Re:Political motivation? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It sounds smart; my grasp on the situation is ... approximate. I'm probably more-correct on the manner of thinking that goes into the larger social reflexes (i.e. the concept that things like looming terrorism or pollution with murderous intent are believed by all these nutjobs on the basis of group hysteria rather than malicious politics), and less-correct on the specific details (to which my exposure has been thin). In emerging situations, I can mostly only repeat what I've heard (that's technically true of everything); the constants are refined and better-understood over the long term.

      Still, sounding smart is a thing.

    3. Re:Political motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shortly after this started, someone reported that GM, Chrysler, and Ford performed substantially-similar to Volkswagen"

      This is simply not true. It deliberately conflates two issues. 1: Deliberate cheating in the emissions tests. 2: Situations in real world driving where emissions may be higher than those in the tests. Even if you only look at the latter and give VW a pass on corporate malfeasance. VW still came out as being far worse than many other manufacturers, and over a wider range of situations.

      "Volkswagen happened to enter a different mode of behavior under testing conditions"

      There was no happen stance. The code was explicitly designed to behave this way.

    4. Re:Political motivation? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      I've had this argument with my wife (a double MBA) several times, regarding businesses skirting the laws. Her stance is that a practice is either legal or it's not. And, if it's legal, then business has an obligation to take advantage of any legal way to maximize profits. I don't personally agree with it, but understand it. There shouldn't be grey area, but there typically is, and business will take advantage of it, just like all these companies moving their financial assets outside of the US to avoid paying higher taxes. We can bitch and whine all we want, but we need rock solid laws/regulations (and I'm saying this as a fiscal conservative) if we want to avoid that crap.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:Political motivation? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's poor business theory. It stems from an invalid hypothesis that businesses have an obligation to maximize the benefit to all stakeholders (shareholders, employees, and customers), and that the benefit to all stakeholders can't be known, and thus a business should maximize profits because stakeholders will cause a reduction in profits if the business is doing something against the interests of its customers or employees.

      That said, I also don't believe the tax issues are important (the impact is minor and non-critical), and regulations to control that behavior are nearly-impossible and incur high amounts of risk. Modifying the current tax system to do ridiculous shit like fix the welfare system, eliminate all homelessness and hunger, and increase employment to 118% (causing an economic crisis by labor shortage, which we fix by making everyone 20% poorer by redefining Full Time as a 32 hour work week, restoring 5.6% unemployment) is doable without closing loopholes, eliminating deductions, or taxing the highest income earners more than 40% (they pay 39.6% now). A lot of people want to also roll in some kind of regulations to make people/businesses/whatever "pay their fair share", which introduces risk, which means they may find new ways around your taxes or they may move out in a way that reduces your tax revenue, breaking these new tax systems entirely and fucking up your national finances.

      As you say, something is legal or it's not; but when both the legal and illegal actions have the same outcome, we have a bad law. It needs to be abolished or altered such that either the legal actions which circumvent its purpose are now illegal *or* the law better-defines its purpose such that the illegal actions no longer need to be illegal.

  5. Cash Grab by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, what VW did was flaky, bad, evill, and so on. But now we are getting into the "obligitory" cash grab, none of these law suites will result in resources to address "climate change" or give VW owners more than a cupon for a Big Mac.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Cash Grab by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fast-forward to some future election...

      "When I was the attorney general, I stood up to crooked multinationals like Volkswagen and I made them pay for the environmental damage they did and their illegal business practices. I have always put the interests of this state first and I always will."

      After the election...

      "Amalgamated Mining, Pipelines and Smelting has been a bedrock of this state's economy for years, and I won't allow the environmental bureaucrats at the EPA to undermine the jobs and economy of this state. Their needless regulation runs counter to the economic security of our state."

    2. Re:Cash Grab by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, if done right, VW should be made to buy these cars back at original price and then allow that to be applied towards an EV from the company, OR they get the value of the vehicle PRIOR to knowing what was wrong.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Cash Grab by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      But now we are getting into the "obligitory" cash grab, none of these law suites will result in resources to address "climate change" or give VW owners more than a cupon for a Big Mac.

      Well, if you'd been following this story you'd know that owners' claims have already been dealt with as part of a fifteen billion (or put another way 6% of the company's annual revenues) settlement. So VW owners' interests are no longer at issue. The same settlement included 2 dollars for clean car research -- although technically that's not a fine, since the products of that research would belong to VW. It also included 2.7 million dollars to the EPA for violating US Federal law. That does NOT settle claims by US States for violating their laws.

      Before I continue, let's put these numbers in context: 10.2 in owner compensation + 2.7 in Federal fines. The context is this: Volkwagen Group has annual revenues of 234 billion dollars and normally keeps over twenty billion dollars in cash on hand. It's enough money to hurt, but it's still pocket change.

      Now in the US states are separate legal entities who can make and enforce their own laws. And this wasn't just a case of the company acting sloppily, or an individual rogue actor, or some weird arcane rule that could be easily overlooked. It was clearly a deliberate company strategy to commit consumer and regulatory fraud in order to gain a market advantage over its law-abiding competitors. It got caught, so now the company has to run the gantlet and take it's wrist slaps from every jurisdiction it broke the law in. If it dies of acute wrist trauma, well it's not as if the company didn't know what it was doing. It took the risk that it could get away with it and it lost. End of story. If they go out of business it's hardly an excessive result given their baldly criminal intentions.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Cash Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to bankrupt VW?? Because that's exactly what you're proposing. In the end, it's YOU, the consumer that suffers. Some how, some way, at some level, you suffer when there's less players in the market and/or the added cost is passed down to you from VW themselves.

      You think you're going to stick it to "the man". In reality, you're just sticking it to yourself.

    5. Re:Cash Grab by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      That assumes that we'd be better off with VW than without, which seems to be logically fallacious on your part because it assumes two things that have clearly been proven untrue just within the scope of this discussion: 1) that anyone besides hired astro-turfing drones like you gives a shit if this bankrupts some shitty abusive foreign company over their illegal practices, and 2) that VW hasn't been actively harming consumers just by existing.

    6. Re:Cash Grab by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      (Oh, and before you jump into the "but the other car companies are doing it too certainly!" argument, you'd better believe we're coming after them next.)

    7. Re:Cash Grab by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, if you'd been following this story you'd know that owners' claims have already been dealt with as part of a fifteen billion (or put another way 6% of the company's annual revenues) settlement.

      Last I heard, they were offering owners a fraction of the lost value, and they were under no obligation to accept. Is that not still the case?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Cash Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having actually owned a Volkswagen (Well, an Audi actually. But that's just a VW with a different badge.) I don't see a big problem with VW going under. Oh, it was fun to drive; but unreliable as hell and expensive and time-consuming to fix. They're just not very good cars. And I'm much happier with my 370Z.

      Besides, even if the current incarnation of Volkswagen were to go out of business, it's not as though all those factories and dealerships would be shut down. Some other company or group of investors would purchase the assets, the factories, the designs, maybe even the name; and go on building and selling cars.

    9. Re:Cash Grab by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      So, you think that 'the man' sticking it to consumers is right?
      Do you believe that if a rich man murders a poor man, that the rich man should go free?

      By having VW pay what the car was worth PRIOR to the report, will not bankrupt VW.
      And if the car is paid out at full value towards a VW/Audi/Porsche EV, than it helps VW turn the penalty around and sell cars instead of giving money.
      Mine is a win-win, where as, your suggestion is that a rich one should get a free ride on society..

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Cash Grab by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      I'm from NY and I *guarantee* this is all about the state getting a few more $$$ under the guise of "environment". Wouldn't surprise me if it was basically Schumer.

      --
      C|N>K
    11. Re:Cash Grab by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'd typically agree with you, but then I just got a check in the mail for the class action suit on DRAM. It was only about $90, but I doubt that I'd lost that much originally.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:Cash Grab by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with sending some of their executives to prison. But do you give a shit about all of the people who will lose their jobs if you put the company down? What about their families, and the suppliers and their families and the decreased competition due to one less manufacturer. It's not trivial. You're talking about impacting tens of thousands of people for the failure of a few jackasses.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re:Cash Grab by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      The sins of the fathers will lead to punishment of their children, and children's children, even unto the 3rd and 4th generations. Its always been so. We can't change that part.

      Besides, think of the BILLIONS being subjected to higher-than-legally-allowed doses of carcinogens, and who will continue to be punished thusly for centuries now, simply for being born on the same planet that Volkswagen exist on.

      And no, I don't think VW is the only car company that deserves punishment here.

  6. Death to VW? by I75BJC · · Score: 1

    With All the Governments piling on, will VW be able to survive? One of the biggest auto companies failing? Is VW "too big to fail"? (It's bigger than GM was at the time of its failure.) 100Ks of employees (VW, dealers, suppliers, etc.) out of work? This is a really big catastrophe in the making. BTW, I would be interested in one of the originally coded diesel engines with higher mpg than the "test code"/EPA dehanced diesel engines that are coming. I'll bet there are plenty of people who want one.

    1. Re:Death to VW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) You are a clueless fool. I'd like to spit on you.

      2) If VW does anything it will leave the US market. VW is a huge company and
              it will take more than some stupid legal action to kill it.

    2. Re:Death to VW? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      My guess is VW will stop making Diesel engines for cars if the haven't already. My understanding is that Europe and particularly the UK, decided to go Diesel to improve fleet fuel mileage rather than the US which has increased fleet gasoline mileage through improvements in engine performance using physical design and computers and the use of hybrid technologies. I recently read the VW is now working on hybrid and electric vehicle tech. I'm not sure if that means gasoline-hybrid or Diesel-hybrid.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    3. Re:Death to VW? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That's why you go after the Board of Directors and CEO that was on watch when this all went down.

    4. Re:Death to VW? by guppysap13 · · Score: 1

      The European regulations for emissions aren't anywhere near as stringent as the US (yet), so they can continue selling diesels there. I suspect VW diesels are done in the US though, and they'll be phased out as Europe clamps down on emissions. Some newer cars like the VW UP! don't even have a diesel option.

    5. Re:Death to VW? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Since Volkswagen is *not* an American company, they're immune to bailout protection.

    6. Re:Death to VW? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      You're right about emissions regulation. The problem is two fold: improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. In the US this has been done using gasoline engines as mentioned in my post where in Europe it was tried with Diesel. Except Diesel produced improve fleet fuel efficiency but not reduced emissions, so VW lied about the latter and got caught. The solutions are tough because often improved efficiency causes increased emissions of nitrogen oxides because engines work at higher temperatures and catalytic converters can increase NOx. Cars made for the US using gasoline seem to be doing OK but not Diesels.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    7. Re:Death to VW? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      At least from the US government.

  7. Dear Editors by Digital+Mage · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please stop using the word "-gate" on any story that has some sort of scandal. Watergate was over 40 years ago....LET IT GO! and just use the word scandal.

    1. Re:Dear Editors by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      So, you are complaining about gate-gate? But wait, I am complaining about your complaint.

      Does that make me a gate-gate-gater? :D

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Dear Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being so gate.

    3. Re:Dear Editors by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      No, just a simpleton.

    4. Re:Dear Editors by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      over 40 years ago

      I'd wager that most of our other words are even older. And really, why use a borrowed French word like "scandal" when there is the perfectly good English word "wrongdoing"? The Norman invasion was almost 1000 years ago! Let it go.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Dear Editors by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      The reason why this new word usage takes favor is because of computer search.

      The most correct way to track discussion topics across multiple mediums would be to create a centralized database and then you request an identifier whenever you want to discuss a new topic. And you use that new ID in your tweets and posts. Because IDs are unique, it is easy to track the beginning and end of the discussion -- just Google for AA536410-7827-4F4A-8F84-F33EE892D9E4 and all those discussions will come right up.

      Of course it would be easier to have a decentralized topic identification system. This is what hashtags are and single word tags are preferred. And dieselgate sounds nicer than dieselscandal.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    6. Re:Dear Editors by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Stop gating complaints.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:Dear Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to say this exactly. What's this trend with -gate? Are we not > 14 yo, and able to use appropriate terms and not random memes?

    8. Re:Dear Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too tire of our -gate adding overlords.

      It made sense when the scandal happened at the Watergate Hotel. Now it just makes it look like Americans can't understand scandal unless it is tied to one of the "appropriately sounding" words.

      Or, perhaps we can just give up using English as it is, and accelerate the speed of making all related words rhyme. For example, we could start with foods, like BigMac, and branch out till we have the TunafishMac, the Orange JuiceMac, and the PretzelMac.

      But my hopes for the USA doing the right thing is so low today that I'm certain my fellow countrymen will misinterpret the example of why not to do this to the English language as instructions on how to improve the language.

    9. Re:Dear Editors by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Certain 'popular' language applications are just stupid and this is one of them.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:Dear Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Default response to headlines with the word -gate in it should be automatically rejected up submission.

    11. Re:Dear Editors by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I am going to refer to the scandal you just started at gategate.

  8. Everybody wants a piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VW should just pull out of the American market and leave you "environmentalists" alone with your gas guzzling SUVs. Fucking hypocrites.

    1. Re:Everybody wants a piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Water cooled VWs are junk, always have been. No loss.

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

      I drive a 30 year old watercooled VW. It is one of the most durable and reliable
      cars ever made.

      Why don't you do the world a favor and kill yourself, it is the only positive contribution you will
      ever be able to make to humanity.

    2. Re:Everybody wants a piece by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Even my German cousins now have to admit VWs are crap. If you know any Germans, you would realize how hard it is for them to admit that. But the fact is that VW is on their 'never again' list.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Everybody wants a piece by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      So many butthurt VW fanbois. If I had a heart it would be warm.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Everybody wants a piece by avandesande · · Score: 1

      VW is Germany's Chrysler.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. I hope it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope the lawsuits fail, or is at least delayed until after the buyback/fix program. This has already been settled at the federal level. I think the states in the lawsuit are just looking for a payout. As a VW TDI owner the buyback/fix applies to, lawsuits that can delay this or bankrupt the company hurt me and the environment. If the company goes bankrupt before the 3.0L engines are addressed, those owners will either be continuing to drive non-compliant vehicles, or be left with a vehicle they paid for and can't legally use. The environmental damage is done. The company (and shareholders that probably didn't know about this) is being punished. Right now the priority should be to bring the vehicles into compliance or get them off the road.

    I don't condone what VW did, but this smells of greenwashed greed. If this was about justice, they should be trying to get the individuals responsible for the fraud extradited and criminally tried.

    1. Re:I hope it fails by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      If VW willfully violated some states environmental laws, then why shouldn't those states seek redress?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I hope it fails by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your priority should be to hack up your firmware with a new high, but still reasonable, version number. So they won't downgrade your ECU to the clean one.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  10. Lock them up by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The aim should be to ensure that the managers responsible for the decision get prison time - fed an air flow of their car's diesel fumes naturally. Anything else is window dressing - but sadly I don't see it happening. Merely extracting money from a company is to damage its shareholders, most of whom are not culpable for the criminal acts done in their name.

  11. Testing on the street... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is exactly what the original university (WV?) researchers did.

    Interestingly, as I recall, their research consortium was partially funded by Ford.

    1. Re: Testing on the street... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because other companies could not figure out how VW was doing something that seemed nearly ecomically impossible based on their own R&D into trying. I am in IT and my CIO is always telling me about some other company that is doing something cheaper and better. Often time when I reach out to my couterparts or colleges in those companies I find something much different and that neither CIO has the full story.

    2. Re: Testing on the street... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other car companies certainly knew Volkswagen was cheating. But it's not good sportsmanship to snitch on the competition. These companies all have their secrets and their competition knows many of them. It's best just to keep quiet, lest they called out on their own wrongdoing.

  12. Keep it up capitalists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually you'll have defrauded enough people that nobody will buy your shit anymore.

    It's amazing how the argument against The Market for Lemons boils down to "but so many people are employed fixing our broken windows!" If I have to spend $100 to get your shit inspected, that's $100 less I am able to pay you for it even if it does manage to be nonfraudulent.

    1. Re:Keep it up capitalists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      But Volkswagen is a German socialist company. What, Germany isn't socialist? Well neither is Sweden. I guess we can all drive Lada's, right?

      What's the difference between a Lada and a golf ball?

      You can drive a golf ball 100 meters

      Why do Lada's have heated rear windows?

      So you can warm your hands when pushing it.

  13. Please stop complaint-gating. NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stop complaint-gating.

    That is all.

  14. NY State Inspections by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

    When you get your NY State Emissions test on your vehicle....does the inspector somehow trigger the software to activate? How has this gone unnoticed when every vehicle gets tested annually?

    1. Re:NY State Inspections by ledow · · Score: 3, Funny

      The test is different - run on a specimen model of vehicle - and the pollution monitored. It's highly prescribed in terms of how it's run. This happens, then that happens, then that happens.

      The software is built to detect this series of unusual speeds, consistent runs, in a predictable order, and modify its parameters.

      It's the most disgusting kind of "cheat the test" mechanic, which is why they're being screwed to the wall for it. It's not a question of anything being activated, or the software going into a certain mode automatically. It's literally designed to detect the test sequence and then cut its performance on detection so that it passes the test. There is no other reason for that code to exist, and it NEVER activates during normal driving (so the test is entirely useless, yes, but also it's been gamed quite deliberately).

      It goes unnoticed because there's been no retesting of vehicles after the initial certification, except your normal emissions test, which is designed to take account of older, more polluting cars. Nobody is saying the car itself isn't legal to pass emissions tests - they just committed deliberate fraud to get it classed as lower emissions vehicle than it EVER could be in normal use.

      New out of the factory, it's more polluting than it ever is tested to be, even on the regular emissions tests (which are incredibly short-lived anyway), and will only get worse with time and by the time it does fail tests, you are out of warranty and they can just say it's because of how you used the vehicle or bad luck.

      But on the road, under normal usage, it's giving out 20-30 times what it does on the regular emissions tests or on the specimen model tests when the model is generally assessed for taxation, etc. based on its pollution.

    2. Re: NY State Inspections by edman007 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In most states, including NY, the check is simply an ODBII test. This test simply asks the car for a list of components that need to work to meet emissions and a yes/no/maybe answer for if it's working. If all things work then the car must pass emissions. This is known to be true because the EPA requires that the manufacturer write up a report that proves they tested the emissions and it meets the standards when the emissions components are working and that the computer detects and reports when the emissions components don't work.

      VW's problem is they lied on the report which and actual emissions are not tested for each car.

  15. No one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About this.

  16. VW Should be Liquidated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There, I said it. VW does not deserve to continue as a going concern. It should be liquidated and its assets sold to pay for the untold environmental damage they have caused, which is completely immeasurable except to say that it is immense.

    Things like this are precisely why we need to elect Jill Stein. She's the ONLY candidate that gives any concern to the environment we live in, and she would never let companies get away with this as our current government has.

    Jill Stein 2016!

  17. A way out of this for VW... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    They simply have to do what everyone else does to get around emissions -- classify their vehicles as trucks. *EVERY* pick-up and SUV is a "truck" in the eyes of federal law, and therefore don't need to meet the strict emissions guidelines for passenger automobiles.

    Take the Golf, Jetta, Passat and every other Diesel car and have them reclassified as a truck. You'll probably have to make some "campaign donations" to some senators and congressmen, but it's probably far cheaper than this scandal.

    And that's it. If the TDI Golf is a truck, then case closed, it can pretty much pollute as much as it wants. This looks like the easiest way out and I believe that VW should spend what they need to, to buy off Congress and get on with their business of being a "job creator" that avoids paying taxes and performs other heinous acts in the name of "good business".

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:A way out of this for VW... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, they don't have to comply with the strict standards for passenger cars, because, they are not passenger cars. They are light trucks.

      But, they still have to comply with the strict standards for light trucks. So, I am not sure what your point is.

    2. Re:A way out of this for VW... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      When people purchase these they should be treated as trucks as well. Which means:
      1. Commercial license plates (here in NY you have the option to not get commercial plates on them)
      2. The higher toll on toll roads (heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear)
      3. Restricted from parkways, the Brooklyn bridge, the car lanes of the NJ Turnpike, the "no trucks" lanes on regular highways, etc

      I'd imagine you'd have a lot fewer people buying giant SUVs... "crossover" models would probably still fit under the 'car' emissions standards so the need would still be filled for people looking to avoid the extra restrictions.

    3. Re:A way out of this for VW... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      1. The license plates are determined by the USAGE of the vehicle in addition to the TYPE of vehicle. If an SUV is not being used commercially, why on earth should it have commercial plates? That makes as much sense as saying all Town Cars should be required to have T&LC plates.

      2. Pressure is what causes road wear. Tire inflation pressures for SUVs and pickups is about the same as for cars. Therefore, the pressure on the road is also about the same.

      3. Road restrictirons are because the roads have lanes that are too narrow and/or overpasses that are too low for trucks to safely use them. SUVs and pickups fit on those roads just fine. Car only lanes are there to prevent a slow-moving truck from trying to pass a slightly slower-moving truck and causing congestion. Not an issue with pickups and SUVs.

    4. Re:A way out of this for VW... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Have you seen some of these SUVs? Chevy Suburban might as well be a bus. The "heavy duty" pickups like the Ford F350 and Ram 3500 might as well be tractor-trailer cab units. Some of these pickups have four rear wheels.

      There's also visibility issues with the heights of these vehicles if you are behind them. Since you can't see what's going on in front of them you have to leave more space.

    5. Re:A way out of this for VW... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The maximum width (which is what matters for lane size) of a commercial vehicle (ie real truck or bus) is 102 inches. The largest Suburban tops out at 80 inches. For reference, a Camaro is 74.5 inches. So a Suburban is slightly wider than a car, and a whole lot narrower than a truck.

      The maximum height (which is what matters for overpass restrictions) of a commercial vehicle is 168 inches. The maximum height of a Suburban is 74 inches. You could stack 2 Suburbans on top of each other and not be as high as a truck.

      Pickups with 4 rear wheels are already classified as medium-duty trucks, and do pay higher tolls and have lane and road restrictions.

  18. Irony by NetNed · · Score: 0

    "Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche defrauded thousands of Massachusetts consumers, polluted our air, and damaged our environment and then, to make matters worse, plotted a massive cover-up to mislead environmental regulators," said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey


    She then got in to her Cadillac Escalade and drove away.

  19. gategate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gategategate! Appgate! Cowgategate! Dieselgateappgategatecowgategategategate!

  20. Crucify VW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VW got caught with its pants down and now it's time to tar and feather them. This is the natural way. My only regret is that I can't get a popcorn and a soda and watch the family murder-suicides that might ensue in Germany due to astounding unemployment after liquidation of VW and all its assets to pay its penalties. Alas, there is no justice in the world and even if they pay what everyone is asking they will still be around. C'est la vie.

  21. Thanks For Using -Gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for using the -gate suffix right in the headline. It immediately told me that this story is not worth reading.

    Why am I saying this? Because I don't want to remain ignorant of your side. I want to know all sides of this issue. But the use of -gate tells me that you feel that this issue cannot stand on its own merits, that you must fluff it up in order for people to take notice.

    In otherwords, it is Click Baiting. And anyone partaking in Click Baiting is not worth listening to. Their position might be worth listening to, and I will gladly listen to someone who does not resort to Click Baiting to get their message across. But you, personally, I will not listen to.

  22. Pot Meet Kettle by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    "the allegations against Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche reveal a culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law and the protection of public health and the environment."

    "the allegations against top US political parties and leaders reveal a culture of deeply-rooted political arrogance & corruption, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law and the protection of public Rights, freedom. and the Rule of Law."

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  23. Pot, meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who released his own statement saying "the allegations against Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche reveal a culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law and the protection of public health and the environment."

    Just Wow.

    We The People released our own statement saying:
    "The attorney generals of each state, as well as congress and our representatives, reveal a culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law and the protection of public health and the environment"