NHTSA Complaints · Active Recalls · California Lemon Law Data
The NHTSA tracks consumer complaints, manufacturer recalls, and safety investigations for every vehicle sold in the United States. These publicly available records are a critical resource for California lemon law cases because they establish patterns of recurring defects.
As of June 2026, the NHTSA has logged 8 complaints against the 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander. Each complaint is filed by a vehicle owner or lessee through the NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety Hotline or online portal at SaferCar.gov. You can review all 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander complaints directly on the NHTSA complaint database.
The 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has generated 17 NHTSA complaints on file with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If your 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has experienced a defect that the dealer has been unable to repair after multiple visits, you may qualify for a full repurchase or replacement under California lemon law. Mitsubishi pays all attorney fees when we prevail. You pay nothing.
Fuel and propulsion system defects can cause stalling, fuel leaks, or power loss — all substantial impairments of use and safety. The 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has generated 2 NHTSA complaints for this defect category. Owner reports include: “I am reporting a safety defect involving my 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport (VIN [XXX] ). On five separate occasions between December 2025 and February 2026, my vehicle ran completely out of fuel despite the dashboard displaying between 18 and 48 miles of remaining driving range. Four of these events occurred on active highways, resulting in sudden loss of engine power and creating immediate collision risk. The dealership diagnosed and replaced the fuel tank gauge unit, fuel level sensor, and sub sensor under warranty. Service documentation references Technical Information Notice TIN #XXX, indicating this is a known issue. This defect caused unexpected highway shutdowns and serious safety exposure. I am concerned other drivers may experience similar failures. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)” (NHTSA Complaint #11719193)
The 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has generated 2 NHTSA complaints for this defect category. If your vehicle has experienced recurring issues in this area that the dealer has been unable to repair after multiple attempts, you may have a qualifying lemon law claim under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Owner reports include: “1. What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? The seatbelt retraction system failed to retract fast enough, which caused the seatbelt to become jammed in the passenger door. This resulted in damage to the passenger front and back door and opening of the passenger door. Yes, the vehicle and the affected components (seatbelt assembly and passenger door) are available for inspection upon request. 2. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? The slow seatbelt retraction created a door jam condition, which could have prevented or delayed exit from the vehicle in an emergency situation. This posed a safety risk to the passenger, as the door could not open or close properly. 3. Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? The issue has been observed by Glassman of Southfield Michigan the service men was not interested at all. In fact when I arrived to have the vehicle inspected the driver seatbelt did not retract back at all and the service guy stated, I should pay attention when unfasten my seatbelt. The guy at the collision shop stated that the seatbelt on the passenger side was not retracting back as it should. I have had two incidents with the passenger seatbelt becoming jammed in the door since I leased the vehicle in August of 2025. 4.Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others. Just the service men at Glassman and Glassmen collision shop. 5.Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure, and when did they first appear? No” (NHTSA Complaint #11718561)
Electrical system failures are notoriously difficult to diagnose and repair, which often results in multiple unsuccessful repair attempts — a key element of a lemon law claim. Reported issues for the 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander include infotainment malfunctions, battery drain, warning lights, power window failures, and intermittent starting problems. 2 NHTSA complaints have been filed for this category. Owner reports include: “I rented this vehicle from Alamo/Enterprise at Denver Airport on 9/7/2025, and that day, while enroute to Casper WY hit a large deer on I-24 N in Wyoming where the posted speed limit is 80 mph, which was exactly the speed I was travelling. The deer was struck by the drivers side front of vehicle, causing extensive damage , loss of headlight and many small parts and electronic sensors as there were a number of dangling wires. The deer was killed instantly. My safety concern is that the air bags failed to deploy, which was surprising given the speed and over $17,000 damage estimate from: Enterprise, case # 23039354, contact person [XXX] can be reached at [XXX] at extension [XXX] . The car was drivable, after tying down all of the loose parts and wires and front grill. I feel that hitting a large deer at 80 mph should have set off air bags, but I could be wrong, since the radiator did not leak and the vehicle remained drivable- but I thought it was worth alerting you and being put in your data To see if other Mitsubishi Outlanders from 2025 have same problem. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)” (NHTSA Complaint #11694217)
Engine and cooling problems are among the most serious defects under California’s Song-Beverly Act. Owners of the 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander have reported issues including stalling, overheating, loss of power, rough idling, excessive oil consumption, and check engine lights that return after dealer repairs. With 2 NHTSA complaints on record, this defect pattern is well-documented. Owner reports include: “Initial Oil Change Visit: Brought leased vehicle under full warranty to the dealership for its first oil change. No issues were mentioned at this time. First Return (After 5 Minutes Driving): After leaving the dealership, warning lights and unusual sounds began within 5 minutes of driving. Returned immediately. The service team claimed the issue was due to the ‘oil gun not being recalibrated’ and that they had topped the oil off using a jug. This was later revealed to be a lie. Second Return (After Another 5 Minutes Driving): The same warning lights and noises returned after driving only 5 minutes. Returned again to the dealership. This time, they admitted that no oil had ever been put into the vehicle after the oil was drained. The service manager stated that the engine was ‘cooked’ and would need to be replaced. Admission by Service Manager: The service manager personally drove me to the rental car location. During this time, he admitted that the technician had simply forgotten to refill the oil after draining it, stating they had ‘just gotten busy.’ He had no explanation for why the dealership had lied during the first return visit. Safety Concerns: This negligence could have had catastrophic consequences. If the engine had blown up while driving, I could have crashed, potentially injuring or killing myself, my pregnant fiancée who was with me, and our unborn child. This was not just an inconvenience but a severe, reckless breach of safety and trust. Dealer’s Resolution: The dealership later acknowledged fault and offered to replace the engine with a new one. However, given the severity of the negligence and the safety risk, we refused and ultimately walked away from the lease when they would not provide an equivalent vehicle under the same terms. They instead paid off the remaining lease balance ($42,286.94). -Sent certifed formal demand letters to dealer and manufacturer -sent follow up emails to both -have not received response to my complaints.” (NHTSA Complaint #11692083)
Brake defects affecting safety may qualify for California’s two-repair threshold under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22, which applies to defects likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has generated 2 NHTSA complaints related to braking, including ABS failures, grinding, reduced stopping power, and warning lights. Owner reports include: “I had the car for less than a month. It had about 850 miles on it. I was driving on a flat service going between 25-30 mph. I was NOT using the Adaptive Cruise Control. Without any warning, the car suddenly accelerated and I immediately felt like I had no control. I do not know how fast the car was going at that point. I tried to brake – I was practically standing on the brake pedal. It all happened very quickly but knew that I had no control over the car. The Forward Collision Warning system did not activate and I hit the car in front of me, which in turn, hit the car in front of her. The airbags on the driver’s side deployed. The car was deemed a total loss by the insurance adjuster. I informed the dealer. It is also mentioned in the police report.” (NHTSA Complaint #11689034)
As of the date of this review, no active recalls have been issued specifically for the 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander. Recall status can change at any time. Check your VIN at NHTSA.gov/recalls for the most current information. The absence of a recall does not mean your vehicle is defect-free — many lemon law claims proceed without a recall on file.
California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790–1795.8) is one of the strongest lemon laws in the United States. It protects buyers and lessees of new and certified pre-owned vehicles that develop substantial defects the manufacturer cannot repair after a reasonable number of attempts.
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22, a lemon law presumption is triggered when any of the following apply to your 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander:
Once the presumption is triggered, the burden shifts to Mitsubishi to prove the vehicle is not a lemon. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d), Mitsubishi must pay your attorney’s fees if you prevail — meaning qualified representation costs you nothing out of pocket.
If your 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander qualifies as a lemon under California law, Mitsubishi may be legally required to:
Step 1: Document every repair visit. Keep all repair orders, work orders, and dealer invoices. Each visit counts as a repair attempt, even if the dealer says nothing is wrong.
Step 2: Keep returning for repairs. You must give Mitsubishi a reasonable opportunity to fix the defect. Visit different authorized Mitsubishi dealers if needed and ask for written documentation of each visit.
Step 3: Contact a California lemon law attorney. Once you believe the threshold has been met — 4 attempts for non-safety defects, 2 for safety defects, or 30 days out of service — contact an attorney for a free case evaluation. Under § 1794(d), Mitsubishi pays your fees if you win.
Step 4: Send a demand letter. Your attorney will send Mitsubishi a formal demand letter. Most California lemon law cases resolve through negotiation without going to trial.
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22, four or more repair attempts for the same non-safety defect, or two attempts for a safety-related defect, triggers the lemon law presumption. Additionally, 30 or more cumulative days out of service qualifies regardless of the number of repair attempts.
Yes. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d), Mitsubishi is required to pay your reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs if you prevail in a lemon law claim. This means qualified lemon law representation is free to you if your case succeeds.
Yes. A recall is not required to file a lemon law claim. The Song-Beverly Act covers any substantial defect that impairs the use, value, or safety of the vehicle that the manufacturer cannot repair after a reasonable number of attempts. NHTSA complaints support the claim by establishing a pattern, but are not a prerequisite.
California lemon law claims are generally subject to a four-year statute of limitations from the date you discovered or should have discovered the defect. However, you must still be within the manufacturer’s original warranty period when the defect first appears. Contact an attorney promptly to preserve your rights.
If your 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander has a recurring defect, California’s Lemon Law may entitle you to a full refund, replacement vehicle, or cash settlement — at no cost to you.
Our attorneys answer the questions we hear most from California vehicle owners — fully updated for 2026.
Get a free case evaluation. Mitsubishi pays our fees if you win — you pay nothing upfront.
Check My Refund Amount →