Statement: Response to Choice of Law Memorandum and Hearing

"Plaintiffs’ counsels’ attempt to use a few handpicked cases to justify applying California law to consumer claims that have no substantial connection to California is simply a form of forum shopping. Approximately 70 percent of the economic loss cases in this multidistrict litigation were originally filed outside of California, and many of those states’ laws differ significantly from California’s laws. Toyota believes applying California law to plaintiffs who purchased, drove, and maintained their vehicles outside of the state would fly in the face of Supreme Court precedent and trample on each state’s right to create and enforce its own laws. As we have argued, allowing a few handpicked plaintiffs to set the course for customers throughout the United States goes against established law and disregards Toyota’s right to due process."

"Just as important, California simply was not the epicenter of the events in these lawsuits. The overwhelming majority of vehicles involved were neither designed nor manufactured in California; Toyota advertising was created and broadcast throughout the country; and decisions to recall the vehicles at issue were made in Japan. What’s more, the Electronic Throttle Control Systems in Toyota and Lexus vehicles at the heart of this litigation were designed and manufactured in Japan, other countries and in states other than California."