LOL
Kia and Hyundai are not mandated to install the most state of the art security systems, to protect them from crime infested shit holes. You may as well demand they install bullet proof glass for their windows.
It's cute that you think Pan laid out anything, other than his usual contrarian trolling. When this lawsuit gets tossed, I expect an apology.
So, I'll confess after watching the video, the "defect" with the car was totally not what I initially understood it to be as the basis for my prior posts. I thought it was not having tracking devices. It seems now it is about starting the car.
That being said, I will still maintain that for a lawsuit to work, you really need to prove that some law was broken. And this bar of "too easy to steal" doesn't really cut it.
Now, with that also being said, the "defect" with the car appears to be something that I would be much less surprised if it actually did violate some sort of existing safety standard, which would have to be the crux of the case I reckon.
Now, with that also being said, I would also warn that the court case could be very interesting and not thrown out, for at least two reasons:
1) it appears Toyota got railroaded pretty good with their "place mat" defect - the media coverage was completely ridiculous, sensationalist, and bad faith and they needed to do all sorts of things to protect their brand
2) Kia and Hyundai are foreign companies, and I think it can be dubious when a local government sues a company headquartered elsewhere. You may recall when Johnny Depp sued UK companies for defamation re: Amber Heard, the judge ruled against him and threw it out quick. Then when Depp sued Heard and a trial for the world to see it was overwhelming in Depp's favor.
There are likely other factors that would be a difference between the Heard case against the tabloids in the UK, and the case against her directly, but it does make me raise my eyebrow about some additional forces that may be at play.