The Leninsky District Court in St. Petersburg ruled in a noteworthy consumer protection case involving a Lexus ES350, ordering Toyota’s Russian representative office to return 19.7 million rubles to the importer. The dispute centered on a sunroof leak that let water into the passenger area, a defect that had persisted despite repeated warranty repairs. The court’s decision was reported through the Telegram channel of the city courts joint press service, signaling an active use of digital channels to communicate civil judgments in Russia.
Initially purchased in 2020, the sedan experienced water intrusion from the sunroof, prompting the owner to seek warranty service from the local dealership on four occasions beginning in 2021. Although each service visit addressed some aspects of the leak, the problem was never fully resolved, leading the owner to pursue a remedy through the court system. The case underscores a broader issue faced by car owners worldwide: when repeated repairs fail to restore a vehicle to the standard promised under a warranty, courts may intervene to recover both the vehicle’s cost and related losses.
In its ruling, the Leninsky Court ordered Toyota Motor LLC to compensate the importer with more than 19.7 million rubles. The breakdown included the 3.45 million rubles for the car’s initial purchase price and an additional 6.2 million rubles reflecting the price difference between when the car was bought and its current value. The decision also imposed a fine of 6.5 million rubles and a separate penalty of 3.45 million rubles, with the vehicle to be returned to the importer following the financial settlement. The judgment illustrates how courts may assess damages that cover both the base purchase cost and the economic impact of depreciation when a defect persists despite multiple repair attempts.
Public records indicate that there were sales of April 2023-produced Lexus models that were officially imported, noting a noticeable rise in volumes in Russia year over year. This context highlights the ongoing demand dynamics for imported premium vehicles within the Russian market and provides a backdrop for understanding how consumer complaints over persistent defects can escalate into formal disputes with material financial consequences for manufacturers and their local distributors. For readers in North America, the case resonates with similar warranty frameworks and recall provisions that aim to protect buyers who encounter repeated, unresolved mechanical issues shortly after purchase. Observers may compare these legal outcomes to standards seen in Canada and the United States, where consumer protection agencies and courts frequently scrutinize warranty performance and fair market value when significant defects recur after initial repairs.