On October 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal brought by FCA US LLC in the ongoing class action over allegedly defective headrests in certain Dodge and Jeep vehicles. The decision clears a significant procedural obstacle and allows the case to continue moving toward trial.
In a previous development, the plaintiffs formally accused the automaker of using arbitration claims to stall a trial that has been pending for six years. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this latest appeal marks another setback for FCA’s efforts to delay the case.
For this latest development, FCA asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a court or an arbitrator should determine the proper venue for this dispute, arguing that federal appellate courts are divided on the issue. FCA pointed to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer & White Sales Inc., which held that courts cannot decide questions about whether a dispute belongs in arbitration when the underlying arbitration agreement assigns that decision to an arbitrator instead. FCA argued the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored this principle when it ruled against the company earlier this year.
The issue traces back to FCA’s attempt to compel arbitration of named plaintiff Jeffrey Olson’s claims, based on an arbitration clause in a lease agreement Olson signed with a car dealership, not with FCA itself. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that FCA, as a company with no direct role in that lease agreement, could not use its arbitration clause to its own advantage.
The Class Counsel pointed out that no appellate court has ever allowed a company to force arbitration of a dispute using a contract clause the company itself was never a party to. As the class explained to the Supreme Court, allowing that outcome would mean, for example, that someone hit by a hit-and-run driver could be forced into arbitration over their right to sue that driver simply because their own cellphone contract happened to include an arbitration clause.
This marked the fourth time in roughly two years that FCA has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on this same question, using the same arguments about a split among federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue each time.
About the Underlying Defective Headrest Case
The case centers on the Active Head Restraint system found in certain Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles. These spring-loaded headrests are designed to deploy forward during a rear-end collision to help prevent whiplash. The class alleges that a defect in the system, tied to a bracket made from an inferior plastic material prone to cracking, causes the headrests to deploy unexpectedly, even without a collision. According to the complaint, this poses a risk of head, face, and neck injury, can cost more than $800 to repair, and can create dangerous driver distraction. The complaint cites National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data showing more than 90 complaints of unexpected deployment, with 15 of those complaints involving reported injuries.
Our Continued Role in This Case
Attorneys Stuart C. Talley, Ian J. Barlow, and Jack R. Davis of Kershaw Talley Barlow continue to represent the plaintiff class in this litigation, working alongside co-counsel from other firms. We remain committed to seeing this case through on behalf of the Dodge and Jeep owners affected by this alleged defect, and we will continue to provide updates as the litigation progresses.
For more information about important updates, be sure to visit our blog often. If you need our help with a case or class action of your own, call (916) 520-6639 at any time. Thank you.
