By Anamati Inyang- November 10, 2025
Two major Dutch consumer organizations have filed a class-action lawsuit against BMW, accusing the luxury automaker of manipulating emissions data in thousands of vehicles sold in the Netherlands.
The Consumentenbond group, in collaboration with the Car Claim foundation, alleges that BMW installed software in its diesel vehicles designed to artificially reduce nitrogen oxide emissions during official testing. However, under normal driving conditions, the cars reportedly emitted pollutants at levels far exceeding regulatory limits.
“It’s shameless how BMW misled both inspection bodies and consumers,” said Consumentenbond director Sandra Molenaar. “The company must take responsibility. We want BMW to compensate the consumers it misled.”
The case involves all BMW and MINI diesel models sold in the Netherlands between January 1, 2009, and September 1, 2019.
When contacted by AFP, BMW spokesman Andrew Mason said the company had learned of the legal action through media reports and had not yet been formally served with the claim. “We therefore do not know the specific allegations that Car Claim has advanced in its claim,” Mason stated.
Car Claim has called on BMW to recall affected vehicles, retrofit them, and compensate both current and former owners.
Guido van Woerkom, chairman of Car Claim, emphasized the group’s willingness to reach a resolution outside of court. “Although we have initiated legal proceedings, we continue to urge BMW to engage in discussions to reach a fair solution together,” he said.
The lawsuit marks another chapter in the ongoing “dieselgate” saga that has rocked the global automotive industry. The scandal began in 2015 when Volkswagen admitted to using deceptive software to pass emissions tests. The revelations triggered a wave of investigations and lawsuits against several major car manufacturers in Europe, the United States, and Asia.
In 2019, German prosecutors fined BMW €8.5 million over diesel vehicles that exceeded legal emission limits. At the time, authorities concluded the violations were the result of negligence rather than intentional fraud.
