An electric car is sold on its range. Few figures matter more to buyers than the mileage stated in the brochure. It determines whether a vehicle appears practical for everyday use, whether holiday journeys seem manageable and whether concerns about reaching the next charging station begin to ease.
The Regional Court in the German city of Wuppertal has now ruled that a significantly reduced range can constitute a serious defect. The buyer of an electric car was therefore entitled to withdraw from the purchase contract. The man had bought the vehicle for €39,000 ($44,700). Its stated range was 332–341 km under the Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP). The standardized testing procedure measures vehicle consumption, emissions and range under defined laboratory conditions. WLTP is the official benchmark used by manufacturers in their advertising.
That benchmark proved decisive in the proceedings. The buyer complained that the car did not achieve the advertised range. The dealer inspected the vehicle and reported that no fault could be found. The buyer then withdrew from the purchase contract.
The court found that annual battery degradation of 2.5% was acceptable given the way the vehicle had been used. After three years, a loss of 7.5% of its range would still have been within acceptable limits. The actual shortfall was 17.1%. The court was not persuaded by the manufacturer’s assumption of a higher annual rate of degradation.
ADAC Test Reveals 18% Deficit
The court commissioned an expert assessment from the German motoring association ADAC. During testing, the expert recorded a range of just 282 km. The vehicle therefore fell almost 18% short of its advertised WLTP figure. The expert identified unusually severe degradation of the traction battery as the cause.
The comparison under identical conditions was crucial. The test did not involve a winter journey with the heating on, high speeds or unfavorable terrain. The vehicle was assessed under the same official procedure used to determine its advertised range. The discrepancy could therefore not simply be attributed to ordinary variations in everyday use or energy-intensive driving.
The court also examined the claimant’s driving and charging habits. He said that he mainly used the car in urban areas, drove in Eco mode and generally charged the battery to no more than 80%. The court considered his account credible. The expert found nothing in his behavior that could explain the discrepancy.
Ten-Percent Rule Extended to Electric Cars
For guidance, the Regional Court drew on case law involving combustion-engine vehicles. In cases concerning petrol and diesel cars, a discrepancy of more than 10% in fuel consumption is generally considered a serious defect. The court has now applied the same principle to the range of an electric car.
That is the central point of the ruling. Anyone who advertises a particular range under the official testing procedure must be judged against that figure when the vehicle is subsequently tested under the same conditions.
The dealer must take back the vehicle. The court awarded the buyer €33,749.95 ($38,692.97), representing most of the original purchase price after deducting €5,250.05 ($6,018.97) in compensation for his use of the car.
The ruling could set a precedent and have implications for other manufacturers. Battery performance and vehicle range remain the electric-car industry’s greatest problem. If customers are entitled to refunds when vehicles fail to perform as promised, manufacturers face both financial losses and lasting reputational damage.