Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Volkswagen, BMW Fined $1 Billion For Colluding To Make Dirtier Cars (theverge.com) 125

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler spent years illegally colluding to slow the deployment of cleaner emissions technology, says the European Union, which is dishing out fines as a result. From a report: The EU's executive branch hit the Volkswagen Group (which owns Audi and Porsche) and BMW with a collective $1 billion fine on Thursday for their role in the scheme. Volkswagen Group must pay $595 million, while BMW will pay $442 million. Daimler, however, evaded a $861 million fine of its own because the automaker revealed the collusion to the regulators.

The scheme described by EU authorities is separate from the Volkswagen Group's massive Dieselgate scandal, in which the company installed software on its diesel vehicles that helped fool environmental regulators into believing they were compliant, when in reality, they were polluting far more than the legal limit. Dieselgate ultimately led to nearly $40 billion in fines, buybacks, and legal fees for the Volkswagen Group. Daimler also installed software on some of its diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests and has paid billions of dollars in fines. BMW was careful to point out Thursday that, unlike the other companies it was caught colluding with, it had not cheated emissions testing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Volkswagen, BMW Fined $1 Billion For Colluding To Make Dirtier Cars More

Volkswagen, BMW Fined $1 Billion For Colluding To Make Dirtier Cars

Comments Filter:

  • Payable in Bitcoin. Hey if it's good enough for criminals then it's good enough for government.

    • Wait, what's the difference again?

      *checks how many Volkswagen employees were in government and vice versa anyway*

  • "The scheme described by EU authorities is separate from the Volkswagen Group's massive Dieselgate scandal,"

    These fraudsters are in many, many scandals, always have, always will.

    • I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @02:35PM (#61563101)

      These fraudsters are in many, many scandals, always have, always will.

      I expected more from a company founded by [checks notes]...oh...nevermind [history.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      One rule for the rich and one rule for the poor. Note how many went to jail, NONE.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        Notice how no actual crime was committed? They complied with EU emissions regulations, but colluded to not go even further.

        "Yes, you paid all the taxes required by law, but by colluding with your tax accountant you avoided paying more taxes than you legally owed, therefore we are fining you for colluding to only pay the taxes you legally owe when you could have paid more."

        • Notice how no actual crime was committed?

          Horseshit.
          They claimed to comply with EU standards but
          were later caught cheating and lying about it.
          Both of these are varieties of fraud, which are most definitely crimes.

    • It's actually a pretty odd case, they complied with the EU law but the prosecutors argued they should have gone beyond what the law required.

      âoeThe five car manufacturers Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche possessed the technology to reduce harmful emissions beyond what was legally required under EU emission standards,â the EUâ(TM)s executive branch wrote in a statement. âoeBut they avoided to compete on using this technologyâ(TM)s full potential to clean better than what is required by law. So todayâ(TM)s decision is about how legitimate technical cooperation went wrong. And we do not tolerate it when companies collude.â

      The issue was more one of cartel-like behaviour than lawbreaking, in fact they were explicitly doing what the law required in terms of emissions control.

  • Well, ... sometimes they are. At least if any of this is true. (I've only got an article here. By people I don't know.)

    Blindly disbelieving any conspiracy theory, and that there's a conspiracy theorist hiding behind every bush and under every bed,
    is just as insane as blindly believing any conspiracy theory and that there's a secret agent hiding behind every bush and under every bed.
    It is exactly the same mindset, and in no way superior.

    Sanity is: Actually checking for yourself.
    No, reading/watching/... anoth

    • Re:"But... but... conspiracies aren't real!..." (Score:5, Funny)

      by r2kordmaa ( 1163933 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @04:50PM (#61563487)
      Sure there are tons of conspiracies, but the moment a non conspirator learns about them they quickly become scandals. You never hear a conspiracy theorist exposing a dieselgate or something like it. No they yap on and on about lizardmen, nwo, flat earth, 5G chips in vaccines etc. Loonie fiction and not much else, a conspiracy theorist wouldn't recognize an actual conspiracy if it bit him in the arse.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      Except that if you look at the list of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, none of them were particularly outlandish. It was more about hiding bad behaviour and/or incompetence by government. Conspiracy theorists just seem to have a romantic idea of government cooperation and competence that simply doesn't exist, and betrays their complete lack of experience in ever having dealt with any part of government.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Aren't criminal charges for fraud more appropriate?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      Their crime was they complied with EU laws, but could have done more.

      It's hard to put someone in jail when they complied with the law.

  • How about the idiots who "Roll Coal"? (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @02:25PM (#61563045)

    I mean VW isn't blameless. They did try and "cheat" the system. I'm pretty sure if you look a bit deeper, they aren't the only ones. Just the ones that got caught.

    When Bad Orange Man tried to get rid of some of the EPA guidelines (like in CA) it was probably nothing like the douches in many states that modified their shitboxes to "roll coal"

    And I really don't know many people who have modified their vehicles to run on wood gas, unless it was for reality TV.

    • Re:How about the idiots who "Roll Coal"? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Penguinoflight ( 517245 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @02:45PM (#61563143) Journal

      I'm also sure there are other actors attempting to "cheat" or at least game the emissions tests, and to some extent the way that highly adaptive efi systems work that's unavoidable. VW uniquely cheated the system in that they entirely disabled the nox correcting equipment for all cases except where emissions testing were detected, even if the emissions test conditions didn't directly call for it. They could have cheated the system to always pass, while also leaving the ammonia injection system operating normally for other conditions, but their unique handling ensured the normal operation was wrong.

      Allegedly this "fuck everything but emissions testing" handling even contributed to the history of them being caught, with many owners noticing that their exhaust injection solution never really got consumed.

      I don't know what that has to do with the roll-coal jackasses. Their behavior is intentionally rude and it doesn't have any greed or deceitful incentive.

      • I'm also sure there are other actors attempting to "cheat" or at least game the emissions tests, and to some extent the way that highly adaptive efi systems work that's unavoidable. VW uniquely cheated the system

        The specific way in which they cheated was unique, but...

        in that they entirely disabled the nox correcting equipment for all cases except where emissions testing were detected, even if the emissions test conditions didn't directly call for it.

        VW was diesel cheating before they were even using DEF. They claimed to be able to pass emissions without a DEF system. And they could, but not while also getting good performance and good mileage. They had to pick two, and were unwilling to do that.

        I don't know what that has to do with the roll-coal jackasses. Their behavior is intentionally rude and it doesn't have any greed or deceitful incentive.

        Fine them the full replacement value of the vehicle every time they are caught driving around with their vehicle modified to make more smoke.

    • Disabling the emissions system on your vehicle is already illegal.

      We don't need more laws about that, we need more enforcement.

      • Disabling the emissions system on your vehicle is already illegal.

        We don't need more laws about that, we need more enforcement.

        Indeed. And note that in most places you can help. If you see someone spewing black smoke, grab their license plate number and then get on the web and look up your local government web site. Odds are very good that there's a way for you to report the violation. I've done it a few times, and my county even sends me emails about the status of the investigation and citation. It's a hefty fine (~$1k) and the violator must also prove that they've repaired the emission system, which typically costs more (merely p

        • I absolutely agree that there is a group of "coal rollers" that get their jollies by spewing soot at hybrids and EVs - I've had more than a few try it when I'm in my Tesla as well. Luckily, there is more than enough accelerator response to just zip ahead of them and not be affected at all, except for having bore witness to their profound stupidity.

          I'll have to see if there is a convenient way to report these rednecks in my state. After all, it's a simple tap on the display to save the last 30 seconds of d

          • After all, it's a simple tap on the display to save the last 30 seconds of dash cam footage...

            Note that you'll have to get pretty close to get good imagery of their plate. I tried to get footage from one that was a few car lengths ahead of me and found that I couldn't read the number.

  • ICE addiction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @02:35PM (#61563105)

    EV Cars have less moving parts, and less ware on those moving parts.

    That means you EV could last a lot longer (where the battery degradation is the biggest factor, than that of the motor dying). So the normal 10-20 year life of an auto can be pushed to a 15-30 year normal life. This means selling less cars.

    The less moving parts also means less maintenance. Oil and fluid changes, are the big ones. Which are the dealers bread and butter.

    We have Gas Stations, which are business around the quick fill up and pick up of some sort of fast food.

    The Battery Electric Vehicle is an extremely disruptive technology that we are going to have to face, and the Automakers are still just trying to play Compliance Cars game until the next guy gets into office, and gives them a free pass. But Tesla had created a problem for them. It forced them to make a better Compliance car because, Tesla is not trying to sell compliance cars but all EV cars. So they are not tiny wimpy cars with a limited range to show how bad EV are, but comparable in many aspects. So the new Compliance Cars these companies are making are actually getting popular, so they are forcing them to change their business model.

    I am sure more than VW and BWM were trying to find ways to make ICE Cars that just have more power at the expense of emissions, including giving a dirtier MPG but a higher MPG. (Dieselgate) New Performance cars that are bigger and louder, to get the car guys to stay interested in their brands.

    They are trying to fight the Disruption and hoping to find a path out. As they can't just switch to all EV like Tesla, because they are going to Osborn Effect their current models.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      This is rose-colored glasses view of electric cars. While EV technology is undeniably existing, there are still plenty of issues to figure out.

      First and foremost, I don't think it is possible to switch everyone to EV with existing battery technology - we simply don't have enough raw materials to do so.
      Second, there needs to be massive investments in power grid and electricity generation to enable EV mass-adoption. Unless this power generation is nuclear or hydro you would be just shifting emissions to t

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        Second, there needs to be massive investments in power grid and electricity generation to enable EV mass-adoption. Unless this power generation is nuclear or hydro you would be just shifting emissions to the power plant site.

        Did wind and solar vanish since yesterday?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No he's a conservative moron who thinks windmills were the cause of the Texas blackouts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        Forth, you can fix your ICE Chevy pickup about anywhere

        Not with all the ECUs, no.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        More so, these batteries are not currently recycled outside of few instances where manufacturer (e.g. Tesla) provides capability to do so.

        Demand, free market, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        Robust network of independent mechanics and aftermarket part suppliers make ICE cars stay on the road for decades, nothing of the kind exists for any EVs.

        Demand, free market, etc.

      • 1) True. New battery tech is coming that requires a lot less of these rare resources. It might be another 10 years before that hits the market, though.
        2) The grid certainly needs beefing up. We did the calculations assuming a switch to 100% EV over 25 years, and while expensive, it is certainly doable. However certain countries (like the USA) have a relatively crappy grid, and will need a larger investment. The argument about shifting emissions to power plants is also true, however it still results

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by glatiak ( 617813 )

        One or two other small problems with the transition to EVs. The power to charge the things has to come from somewhere and will need to be distributed over a much wider area to charge the things. And one of the fantasies that the eco-warriors have is to make major reductions in energy consumption in north america and other notionally developed places to reduce greenhouse gasses. Something will have to give when these two forces collide. Personally, I would hope for a better nuclear industry, but whatever...

        A

      • We simply don't have enough raw materials to do so

        Limitations of mineral resources are usually poorly understood and certainly in this question. Understand that mining is literally just scratching the surface of the planet, there are effectively limitless amount more to work with. The limit is, that we are scratching the very best places, with highest yields and lowest costs, these places certainly are limited, alternatives would cost more. Which isn't much of an issue for batteries, materials are an insignificantly small proportion of final cost, so much

      • Fifth- Control. EVs seem to be running on a walled garden approach, with many functions offloaded to soon to be outdated displays (ICEs are starting to do this as well), forced updates, and basic diagnostic hiding behind threats of IP infringement.

        The forced updates and features that won't be supported for the lifecycle of the vehicle (although Onstar is probably the worst offender), with no viable means to modify (or have third-party management).

        I'd rather not have a vehicle that is obsolete by a software

      • First and foremost, I don't think it is possible to switch everyone to EV with existing battery technology - we simply don't have enough raw materials to do so.
        We have ... how do you come to that silly idea? And we are shifting to more abundant stuff like in Lithium Sulfur batteries or Aluminium Air batteries.

        Second, there needs to be massive investments in power grid and electricity generation to enable EV mass-adoption.
        In most countries/cases you would charge over night. And at night grid load is usually

      • we simply don't have enough raw materials to do so.

        Do you have a link to a proper peer reviewed study to say so? Basically every claim like this so far has some glaring and most fundamental flaws, from those that claim there isn't enough lithium in the world which is incorrect, to those who think like "peak oil" ignoring the economic incentive that drives the available supply of proven resources and the effort we put into extracting them.

        Second, there needs to be massive investments in power grid and electricity generation to enable EV mass-adoption. Unless this power generation is nuclear or hydro you would be just shifting emissions to the power plant site.

        There needs to be some investment but the effects are largely overblown. Most of the issues can be handled through smart

      • These are not tough to fix, it just requires us to do it differently.

        1. We have the minerals to do this, we will need to increase mining, to do this, as recycling older EV when they finally do get scrapped. We are currently mining and pumping oil from all spots on earth, because we demand it, and we just burn it when we get it. EV may require more mining to get the materials, we do have it available enough to meet supply, but we will need to change our priorities to get the material.

        2. Home Solar is th

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      What "disruption" are you blathering about, only one percent of cars are EV, the kind people can afford aren't yet produced in any significant quantity and won't be for at least 10 years.

      The FACT is that EV cost 50 or greater percent more, and still have 75 percent the maintenance costs.

      EV is mot ready for prime time yet for the masses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by nbvb ( 32836 )

        Average price of a new car in the US: $40,857 per https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]

        For comparison sake... here are MSRP's of several EVs ...
        Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus: $39,990 - https://www.tesla.com/model3/d... [tesla.com]
        Chevrolet Bolt: $34,200 - as shown at https://www.chevrolet.com/elec... [chevrolet.com]
        Hyundai Kona: $37,390 - https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/... [hyundaiusa.com]
        VW ID.4: $39,995 - https://www.vw.com/pre-order/ [vw.com]

        None of those prices include any tax credits or incentive programs.

        Methinks you need to re-examine your so-called "fac

        • you're hilarious, taking average of ICE including high end vehicles. No, your EV compare with things like Honda Civic for $21K and lesser cost cars. ICE costs 2/3 or less of comparable EV.

          You distort "facts".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

          Giving the mean price of one item in your comparison, then cherry picking examples from the other? That's just plain dishonest.

          Methinks you need to re-examine your so-called "facts".

          Irony. Noun. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

      • You obviously haven't priced used Nissan Leafs. You can get them for under $8k now. I'd buy one tomorrow for my short work commute but they're just too damn ugly. You're also full of shit in regards to Tesla maintenance costs.

        https://insideevs.com/features... [insideevs.com]

        Sonnad predicts Tesloop’s Model 3s will serve for over 500,000 miles, and will reach a total cost per mile (including depreciation) as low as $0.18 to $0.25 per mile - far lower than the current average of $0.32 to $0.35 for legacy sedans.

        • 9 year old one with about 60 mile range due to worn batteries? no thanks.

        • You obviously haven't priced used Nissan Leafs. You can get them for under $8k now.

          If they don't have a new pack then fuck that. There are only two EVs on the American road with little enough range to cause anxiety. One is a gen 1 leaf, and the other is the vanishingly scarce RAV4 EV. The second you need to make any trivial trip that deviates from your commute you're going to have to check to see whether it's feasible, that's dumb.

          I'm kind of surprised nobody has made a decent pack+cooling system for the Leaf yet. Densities have gone up so it should be possible to get at least the same ra

      • If you want to see the change coming look at sales of NEW cars, not the 10+ year old fleet of existing cars. EV sales are booming like crazy, granted not equally in every part of the world, some countries are quite a few years ahead in adaption curve compared to others.

        There absolutely is EV disruption in progress and if you don't see it you must be blind or living under a rock.

        • I don't call 3 percent of global sales, mostly to the well to do or rich "disruption." You're the one living under rock, it'll take a decade if ever to change ICE dominance, the cost and the lack of infrastructure are show stoppers for the common man.

          • Look at year on year growth you doofus. You are like some people in early nineties going "pff... personal computers, obscure toys, who needs them"

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by kenh ( 9056 )

              Countless millions of drivers live in apartments and condos that lack a garage or even a permanent parking space under their control to install an overnight charger - without a practical alternative (massive public charger infrastructure, for example) EVs will be limited largely to people rich enough to have a garage or private driveway.

              • And yet, EV sales are going fantastically well. What will the sales do when such challenges no longer hold them back? If every parking spot needs a charging outlet, then that will sooner or later be arranged, it's not like it's terribly complicated to add metered mains outlets to city streets, it's quite straightforward.
    • EV cars are great, but they have only recently become cost competitive at the low end - and I think still don't compete with very inexpensive cars - assuming >100 mile range is needed for commuting. My next car will be electric, but I can afford one. Lots of people can't. yet. (though I expect prices to continue to drop)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        Very, very few people have a commute of 100 miles round trip and do it by car now, so that's a red herring.
        • In the SF bay area they do, especially the people who can't afford to buy housing in expensive areas - the same ones who need inexpensive cars. Its easy to loose track that for many people a car is their largest purchase, something that they have to pay of over quite a few years. Last I checked (motor trend article from March 2021) the least expensive electric cars in the us are about $30K A base honda civic is $22K For some people that is an important difference

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kenh ( 9056 )

            If you live in an apartment building, where do you charge your EV?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              If you live in an apartment building, where do you charge your EV?

              At the charging point provided? Assuming you live in a decently-provisioned apartment. These are springing up. Or maybe your workplace?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

            Last I checked (motor trend article from March 2021) the least expensive electric cars in the us are about $30K A base honda civic is $22K

            TCO might actually favour the EV in this instance. The issue would be cost, but if you are financing $30k + small amount for daily use, versus $22k + a larger amount (fuel, duties, pollution charges), the actual TCO per month might be the same. Since batteries should now last pretty much as long as an engine will in an ICE, that's not so much of an issue. You might argue resale value factors in, but perhaps not if you are expecting to keep the car ~15 years as the resale value of an ICEV might be significa

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          In the northeast US an hour-long commute is not so exceptional - the issue often isn't distance so much as traffic congestion. Yes, public transport could alleviate much of that, but it hasn't yet.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

            In the northeast US an hour-long commute is not so exceptional - the issue often isn't distance so much as traffic congestion.

            Then an hour-long commute is not really an objection to electric cars, then, as they don't use power (other than radio, aircon, etc) when not moving, and those uses are much lower than the energy required to move a vehicle.

  • Obviously just a few rogue engineers... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jsrjsr ( 658966 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @02:48PM (#61563163)

    ...just like last time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      You understand they complied with the law, but are being fined because better emissions were possible, but they chose to merely comply with EU regulations?

      “The five car manufacturers Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche possessed the technology to reduce harmful emissions beyond what was legally required under EU emission standards,” the EU’s executive branch wrote in a statement. “But they avoided to compete on using this technology’s full potential to clean better than what is required by law. So today’s decision is about how legitimate technical cooperation went wrong. And we do not tolerate it when companies collude.”

  • As soon as I saw the billion dollar fine, before even reading the summary, I knew it had to be an EU fine. The United States completely lacks the testicular fortitude to hit a large company with a real fine, and is far too enamored of the kickbacks from their lobbying to ever make a real difference in their business practices.

  • ICE following the same path as Tobacco ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ti-coune ( 837201 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @03:08PM (#61563219)
    Years ago it was normal to smoke in a restaurant or office. Then (most of) the world realised smoking is bad for the health and could kill. So tobacco was banned from most places. Normal, because if owners of these places did not do anything, they would later face responsibility for putting health of users at risk. Wondering if the same will happen with the Internal Combustion Engine. Owners of streets where ICE cars are allowed are cities. If they don't ban the ICE from their streets, they might become responsible for the health problems created ? And I'm not talking about Climate Change.
    • Already happening: many cities in Europe are banning diesel cars, not for the sake of the climate (diesels are actually a little greener than petrol cars), but to clean up the air. I wonder if the same will happen to petrol cars. Rotterdam actually already tried to ban older petrol cars, but a judge made them reverse that decision, because the impact on air quality was insignificant compared to the impact.

      I'm hoping that by the time they get around to banning petrol cars, there won't be enough of them

      • I really wish people would apply the same emissions standards to ocean going ships. That is where the biggest difference is to be made, since they currently have no pollution controls (DPF, Cat converters, etc) at all.

        • A lot of opponents to the Rotterdam emission zone did exactly that. They argued that a single cruise ship pulling into port would negate half a year’s emission reductions from the diesel ban.

      • Already happening: many cities in Europe are banning diesel cars, not for the sake of the climate (diesels are actually a little greener than petrol cars), but to clean up the air.

        Which, as it turns out, is fucking stupid [slashdot.org].

  • Seriously, this money just drops into the government maw and nobody will ever really know what it got spent on.

  • Let's see BMW paid $442 million, they have about $64B in assets. Therefor a 0.7% fine, that's like an individual with a nice house and assets totaling about $1M getting a fine for $7000. Hardly a punishment that would squeeze that individual significantly, more of an inconvenience.

  • Given that the pollution they cause results in the death of kids especially, it would appear to be legitimate to argue that their decision resulted in deaths. If so, the fines would be a lot more 'interesting'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/sci... [bbc.co.uk]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      They complied with the law regarding emissions. If you want less deaths, change the regulations.

  • Fines hurt mostly the innocent, insulating the ones who are actually responsible for such reprehensible behavior.

  • BMW was careful to point out Thursday that, unlike the other companies it was caught colluding with, it had not cheated emissions testing.

    O RLY? [greencarreports.com] Lying fucks. They only didn't get caught cheating emissions testing deliberately, and that only because they were more competent and there was no smoking gun correspondence.

  • From the article description:

    Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler

    BMW is NOT OWNED by Daimler. BMW is its own company.

    Has the person summarizing the article ever set foot in a BMW dealership!?!

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close