Honda Keyless Entry Lawsuit 2026 Which Cars Qualify?

A putative class action filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. on October 29, 2026, alleges that certain Honda and Acura vehicles with passive keyless entry (PKE) are especially easy for thieves to unlock and start, and that Honda did not adequately warn buyers or fix the problem.

The case is Innarella v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., et al., No. 2:26-cv-12679, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The proposed nationwide class covers qualifying Honda and Acura vehicles bought or leased from January 1, 2015, onward.

Here is the part most owners miss: the lead plaintiff does not claim her car was stolen. She claims the alleged weakness made her vehicle worth less than she paid for it.

Status as of November 13, 2026: no class has been certified, Honda has not been found liable, and there is no settlement, claim form or payout.

Honda Keyless Entry Lawsuit: Latest Case Details

Detail	Verified information
Case	Innarella v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., et al.
Case number	2:26-cv-12679
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Judge (as reported)	George H. Wu
Filed	October 29, 2026
Plaintiff	Trina M. Innarella, New Jersey resident
Plaintiff’s vehicle	2024 Honda Civic Sport (not alleged to have been stolen)
Defendants	American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; unnamed Does
Alleged defect	Insecure passive keyless entry systems
Proposed vehicle period	January 1, 2015, to the present
Claims	Consumer fraud, express and implied warranty, breach of contract, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment
Relief sought	Damages (including treble damages where the law allows) and injunctive relief
Class certification	None; proposed classes only
Settlement	None
Official settlement website	None. No settlement exists, so no administrator site has been set up
Claim form	None

A summons has been issued and the court has entered standing orders. No responsive pleading, class-certification ruling or merits decision had been reported by the date above.

Why Is American Honda Motor Co. Being Sued Over Passive Keyless Entry?

Passive keyless entry lets a driver unlock and start a car while the key fob stays in a pocket or bag. The car and the fob talk to each other by radio signal. The lawsuit says that convenience can be turned against owners.

According to the complaint, Honda has known about these weaknesses for more than a decade. It points to security research dating back to at least 2011, a related patent Honda itself obtained, and a 2022 inquiry from U.S. Senator Edward Markey. Despite that, the plaintiff says Honda gave buyers no meaningful warning, did not roll out an effective fix, and did not make aftermarket protection, such as stealth immobilizers, easy to get through dealerships.

The complaint names several Honda trade names for the technology, including Keyless Access System, Smart Entry, Smart Entry with Walk Away Auto Lock, and Smart Entry & Push Button Start.

The core accusation is not simply that thieves can steal cars. It is that Honda allegedly knew about the weakness, kept quiet, and sold vehicles at prices that did not reflect the risk. Honda has not admitted any of this, and none of it has been proven.

How Do Thieves Allegedly Attack Honda and Acura Keyless Systems?

The complaint describes four broad methods.

Relay attacks on Honda key fobs

A relay attack amplifies the signal from a fob that is still inside a home or nearby, so the car behaves as if the fob were standing next to it. The car unlocks and can be started.

Electronic software entry theft

The complaint describes a criminal using a laptop and specialized software near a Honda or Acura to gain access electronically.

Rolling-PWN attacks

Many keyless systems use rolling codes, which change with each use so a captured signal cannot simply be replayed. Rolling-PWN is a reported technique that allegedly defeats certain rolling-code protections.

Key cloning and blank key fob programming

This involves programming a blank fob so the vehicle accepts it as a legitimate key.

Appearing in a lawsuit does not prove that each method works against every Honda or Acura. Whether a particular vehicle is exposed depends on its specific hardware and software.

Which Honda and Acura Models Are Named in the Keyless Entry Lawsuit?

The complaint does not rely on one short model list. Instead, it proposes covering Honda and Acura vehicles with passive keyless entry from January 1, 2015, onward.

Several models are singled out because they have ranked among the most stolen vehicles in recent years, according to the complaint (2022–2024 model years).

Vehicle	Why it appears in the case
Honda Civic	Named among frequently stolen models; the plaintiff owns a 2024 Civic Sport
Honda CR-V	Named among frequently stolen models and in the federal theft-ring case
Acura TLX	Named among frequently stolen models and in the federal theft-ring case
Acura RDX	Named among frequently stolen models and in the federal theft-ring case
Other Honda and Acura models	Possibly covered if they meet the proposed class definition

This is not an official list of defective vehicles. What matters is whether your car actually has passive keyless entry. A Honda or Acura with a standard remote and a physical key turn is not the configuration described in the complaint. Check your owner’s manual, original window sticker or dealership records.

Who Is Trina Innarella, and Was Her Honda Civic Stolen?

Trina M. Innarella is a New Jersey resident who owns a 2024 Honda Civic Sport. The complaint does not say her car was stolen or broken into. Her theory is economic: the alleged vulnerability reduced the car’s value, and she did not get the security she reasonably expected when she bought it.

That distinction shapes the whole case. An undisclosed-defect claim can sometimes seek money even when the defect has not hit every owner. But the plaintiff still has to prove a legally recognized injury, the elements of each claim, and a workable way to measure damages. The possibility of a future theft does not automatically entitle anyone to payment.

Honda Keyless Entry Class Action Lawsuit, Are 2015–2026 Honda and Acura Vehicles Vulnerable to Theft?

Who Are the Defendants and Plaintiff’s Lawyers in Innarella v. American Honda?

The defendants are American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., and unnamed Doe defendants.

Reporting on the complaint lists these firms for the plaintiff: Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C. (attorney Jeff S. Westerman), Saveri Law Firm LLP, Miller Law LLC, Fink Bressack, Furniss, Davis, Rashkind and Saunders P.C., and KBH Law Offices.

What Did the U.S. Department of Justice Find About Stolen Honda and Acura Vehicles?

The complaint points to a federal criminal case in Washington, D.C. On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced that six people were charged in a 15-count indictment tied to an alleged international car-theft conspiracy.

Prosecutors said the group was linked to at least 20 stolen vehicles in the Washington area and Pennsylvania, mostly recent-model Honda Civics, Honda CR-Vs, Acura TLXs and Acura RDXs. According to the Justice Department, the defendants used electronic devices to reprogram the vehicles to accept previously blank key fobs, then tried to disguise the cars’ identities and ship them to buyers, including overseas.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, April 22, 2026

Does the Justice Department case prove Honda sold defective cars?

No. The indictment accuses individuals of theft. It is not a finding that Honda broke any consumer-protection or warranty law. It does show that electronic theft of these models is a real law-enforcement issue, but in the civil case the plaintiff must separately prove an actionable defect and compensable harm.

What Did Senator Edward Markey Ask Honda About Keyless Entry in 2022?

On July 20, 2022, Senator Edward Markey sent letters to 17 automakers, including Honda, asking about thefts, known vulnerabilities and what they were doing to stop electronic attacks on keyless systems. He warned that technology meant to improve security could become a target for sophisticated thieves.

Source: Senator Markey’s letter to automakers on keyless entry

The letter shows keyless-entry security was already a public policy concern. It does not, on its own, prove that Honda knew of a specific defect in every vehicle or hid it. That would take further evidence.

What Laws Does the Honda Keyless Entry Putative Class Action Rely On?

The complaint, as reported, invokes California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, express and implied warranties, state consumer-protection and warranty statutes, common-law fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The laws below are the ones that typically govern claims like these. Which of them the plaintiff has actually pleaded should be confirmed against the full complaint.

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750 et seq.)

California Civil Code § 1770 lists unfair or deceptive practices in consumer sales. Provisions commonly cited in defect cases include § 1770(a)(5), which bars representing that goods have characteristics they do not have, and § 1770(a)(7), which bars representing that goods are of a particular standard or quality when they are not. Remedies under the CLRA, including damages and injunctive relief, are set out in Civil Code § 1780. Before suing for damages, a plaintiff generally must send the defendant written notice under Civil Code § 1782 and give it time to respond.

California Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200)

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 covers unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. Remedies are generally limited to restitution and injunctive relief, not the broader damages available under other claims.

California False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500)

Section 17500 bars untrue or misleading advertising. It is often pleaded alongside the UCL when a plaintiff says marketing hid or misdescribed a product’s characteristics.

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (California Civil Code § 1790 et seq.)

California Civil Code § 1792 creates an implied warranty of merchantability for consumer goods sold at retail in California. The court would look at whether the vehicles met ordinary standards of use, what security features were promised, whether the alleged defect existed at the time of sale, and which state’s law applies to each buyer.

California Commercial Code §§ 2313 and 2314

These sections set the baseline rules for express warranties (§ 2313) and the implied warranty of merchantability (§ 2314) in sales of goods.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.)

This federal statute lets consumers sue over breached written or implied warranties on consumer products. It is a common companion to state warranty claims in automotive defect suits, though the reporting on this complaint does not specifically list it.

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.)

Because the named plaintiff lives in New Jersey, her home state’s consumer-fraud law may matter. That statute provides for treble damages in qualifying cases (N.J.S.A. 56:8-19), which may be what the complaint means by treble damages “where available.” Whether it is actually pleaded needs to be checked against the complaint.

Common-law fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment

Fraud by omission generally requires a material concealed fact, a duty to disclose, the defendant’s knowledge, reliance and resulting damage. Unjust enrichment asks whether Honda kept a benefit it should not in fairness keep. Because the proposed class spans buyers in every state, the court will also have to decide whose state law applies to each claim.

Federal rules that decide whether the case survives

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): Honda can move to dismiss claims that do not state a plausible legal claim.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): fraud-based claims must be pleaded with particularity.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3): the plaintiff must show numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, plus the requirements for an injunctive class (b)(2) and a damages class (b)(3).
Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)): the usual basis for a large multistate class action to be heard in federal court.

Federal vehicle-theft and safety rules in the background

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (49 C.F.R. § 571.114) sets theft-protection requirements for passenger cars, including immobilizer requirements. Defects that create an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety fall under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118–30120, which govern manufacturer notification and recall. Whether a theft vulnerability qualifies as a “safety defect” for recall purposes is a separate question from this civil case, and no recall tied to Innarella has been identified.

What Are the Proposed Classes in Innarella v. American Honda?

Damages Class: persons or entities who purchased (other than for immediate resale) or leased a Honda or Acura with a passive keyless entry system from an authorized dealer in the United States, its territories or Washington, D.C., from January 1, 2015, to the present.

Injunctive Relief Class: current owners or lessees of such vehicles from the same period.

Neither class has been certified. The court can narrow, change or reject both definitions.

Does a Honda or Acura have to be stolen to be included?

No. The proposed damages class is built on an economic-loss theory and does not depend on a theft. That is also why the plaintiff’s own car being untouched does not, by itself, end the case. It does mean she must prove her loss through diminished value rather than a stolen vehicle.

What if you already sold your Honda or Acura?

A former owner could fall within the proposed damages class if the purchase or lease otherwise fits the definition. The scope of any recovery remains unresolved.

What Could Honda and Acura Owners Receive in This Lawsuit?

The plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, treble damages where legally available, and other remedies. If she wins, that could mean compensation for proven diminished value or other qualifying losses, or court-ordered changes such as added security measures.

There is no approved amount, no guaranteed reimbursement, no free repair program and no settlement fund. Treble damages are not automatic. The court would have to find that the governing law allows them and that their requirements are met.

Is There a Honda Keyless Entry Recall or Settlement?

No recall resolving the vulnerabilities alleged in Innarella has been identified in the government materials reviewed. That does not rule out separate recalls for individual models. Check your vehicle with the NHTSA recall lookup using your 17-character VIN.

A lawsuit is not a recall. For example, Honda Class Action Lawsuit Investigation For Safety System Failures 2026, Front Camera Defects Cause Phantom Braking In CR-V And Accord Models covers a different safety system and a separate proceeding. Likewise, Honda Prologue Axle Defect Lawsuit, What 2024–2026 Owners Need to Know involves an alleged mechanical defect, not electronic theft.

How Does the Honda Case Compare With Other Keyless-Theft Lawsuits Against Ford and General Motors?

Honda is not the only automaker facing this theory. A putative class action against General Motors over an alleged keyless-entry design flaw was trimmed by a Texas federal judge in April 2026, though most of the claims were reported to survive. A separate putative class action, Pelletreau v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:26-cv-13422, was filed on September 9, 2026, in the Eastern District of Michigan and had no settlement or claims process at last report.

Those cases show courts will let some keyless-theft claims proceed, but they say nothing about how the Honda case will turn out.

Is the Honda Keyless Entry Lawsuit the Same as the Hyundai and Kia Theft Settlement?

No. The Hyundai and Kia litigation centered on vehicles that lacked engine immobilizers. The Honda case concerns passive keyless entry systems that the plaintiff says can be defeated electronically, even where an immobilizer exists.

For the separate consumer settlement, see $9 Million Kia Hyundai Lawsuit Settlement, Get Up to $4,500 Cash or Free Security Upgrades – File by March 31, 2027. Honda and Acura owners cannot claim from the Hyundai or Kia settlement.

How Can Honda and Acura Owners Reduce Theft Risk Now?

You do not need to wait for the court. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends layered protection:

Use a visible steering-wheel lock. It adds a physical barrier even if the electronics are compromised.
Store key fobs securely. Keep them away from doors and windows, and consider a signal-blocking pouch made for car keys.
Ask about a secondary immobilizer. A qualified professional can advise on compatible devices that need separate authorization before the car will drive.
Protect the diagnostic port. Ask a qualified installer whether a compatible port-lock device exists for your vehicle.
Keep records. Save purchase documents, equipment specifications, dealer correspondence and any security-related expenses.
Report problems to NHTSA. Owners can file safety concerns through the agency.

No single step stops every method. Avoid unauthorized modifications that could interfere with vehicle electronics, safety systems or warranty coverage.

Source: NHTSA Vehicle Theft Prevention

What should you do if your Honda or Acura has already been stolen?

File a police report, notify your insurer and keep every record: the police case number, your VIN, insurance paperwork and details of any damage. If the car is recovered, have a qualified professional check whether unauthorized electronic keys were programmed and need to be removed. Recovering theft-related losses from Honda would require separate legal proof and is not promised by this lawsuit.

What Happens Next in Innarella v. American Honda Motor Co.?

The case is at an early stage. Honda may answer the complaint or move to dismiss some or all claims. The court will then weigh whether the plaintiff has pleaded a real economic injury, whether an actionable security defect exists and whether a nationwide class can be certified under Rule 23. Discovery could reach Honda’s security testing, engineering records, customer complaints, theft data, warranty information and internal communications about countermeasures.

Even if a class is certified, that alone would not prove Honda is liable.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Honda Keyless Entry Lawsuit

Is there a Honda keyless entry class action lawsuit in 2026?

Yes. Innarella v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 2:26-cv-12679, was filed October 29, 2026, in the Central District of California. It is a putative class action.

Which Honda and Acura models are affected by the Innarella lawsuit?

The proposed class covers qualifying Honda and Acura vehicles with passive keyless entry bought or leased from January 1, 2015, onward. The Civic, CR-V, TLX and RDX are specifically mentioned. The court has not approved a final model list.

Is the 2024 Honda Civic included in the lawsuit?

The plaintiff owns a 2024 Honda Civic Sport and says it has the challenged system. Other 2024 Civics would have to meet the equipment and class requirements.

Does my Honda or Acura have to be stolen to qualify?

No. The proposed damages class does not depend on an actual theft.

How much money can Honda owners get from the keyless entry lawsuit?

No amount has been set. The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, but there is no settlement.

Has Honda admitted its keyless entry system is defective?

No admission or court finding of a defect has been identified.

Is there a Honda keyless entry settlement claim form or official settlement website?

No. There is no settlement, no administrator, no official settlement website, no claim form and no filing deadline.

Can I join the Honda keyless entry lawsuit now?

The class has not been certified. Consumers generally do not sign up in advance to be part of a class if one is later certified, but individual rights and deadlines can vary.

How can I check the status of Case No. 2:26-cv-12679?

Search the case number through PACER for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, or check the publicly available federal docket index.

Bottom Line

A putative class action says certain Honda and Acura keyless entry systems leave owners exposed to electronic theft and that American Honda Motor Co., Inc. did not tell them. The named plaintiff does not claim her own car was stolen. She says the risk cut her car’s value.

Federal prosecutors have charged people in a real electronic car-theft case involving these models, but that does not make Honda civilly liable. For owners, the key points are that no class is certified, no settlement exists, and not every Honda or Acura has been shown to have the alleged weakness. Until the court rules, these remain allegations.

Sources and Legal References

Disclaimer: This is general legal information, not legal advice. The claims described are allegations that have not been proven in court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the public federal docket, the U.S. Department of Justice press release, Senator Markey’s official letter, NHTSA and California statutory sources, and contemporary reporting on the complaint (CarComplaints.com, Law360), as of November 13, 2026. Last Updated: November 13, 2026.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.