• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia

GM recall: A civil case or criminal prosecution?

By
Doron Levin
Doron Levin
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Doron Levin
Doron Levin
Down Arrow Button Icon
March 25, 2014, 3:08 PM ET
GM CEO Mary Barra

FORTUNE — Chances are slim to none that Mary Barra, General Motors Co. (GM) chief executive officer, can do much but apologize, nod ruefully, answer questions, and otherwise abase herself and GM when she appears before Congress next week.

Hanging over her head, as well as the heads of other GM executives, could be a criminal prosecution, just like the one that pressured Toyota last week to agree to a $1.2 billion fine and three years probation. Not that the government definitely intends or is likely to charge her — but, hey, who could take such a chance by showing anything but remorse?

Once the klieg lights and TV cameras are switched on, anything might happen. More than a few members of Congress bear a grudge over facets of the 2009 GM bankruptcy, including the way it was used as an instrument — remember “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”? — to undermine Mitt Romney’s presidential bid.

MORE: GM’s recall scandal: A scorecard on Mary Barra

GM has more or less already pleaded guilty to the charge that it was too slow to fix an ignition problem it first learned about in 2004 — and perhaps as early as 2001. The affected Saturn Ions and Chevrolet Cobalts numbered about 1.6 million. In the meantime, 12 deaths and 31 accidents have been attributed to the faulty ignition. The problem evidently could be triggered when a heavy keychain inadvertently jarred the key from the “run” position to “accessory,” disabling airbags and other safety equipment.

Remorse didn’t work so well for Toyota (TM). The company’s president Akio Toyoda in early 2010 apologized profusely before Congress for a series of accidents involving the automaker’s vehicles. The affected cars were alleged to accelerate without pressing on the gas pedal, rendering automobiles uncontrollable. Four years later there’s little evidence that an obvious defect was responsible apart from some customers placing multiple floor mats in front of the driver, which in some instances entrapped the gas pedal.

Toyoda expressed sorrow for accidents and condolences for the victims — the company did not concede that negligence or deliberate acts of malfeasance caused the accidents or that it intended to hide evidence.

Toyota had learned from customers in Europe and the U.S. that some of their accelerators were “sticky.” It corrected the potentially dangerous problem with a recall, though no accidents or injuries were attributed to it. A third allegation, that electronic “gremlins” were the blame for wild acceleration, baffled researchers and finally was deemed to be spurious. What’s more likely is that some older drivers, as in the case of the Audi 5000, were depressing the accelerator when they thought they were on the brake.

MORE: GM recalls a sour note, spoiling positive reviews for its vehicles

The basis of the U.S. government’s criminal prosecution against Toyota, leading to the $1.2 billion fine, was two-pronged. First, in 2009 Toyota recalled eight models that experienced pedal entrapment; the government said Toyota knew there were more models that should be recalled. The second prong was the government’s allegation that Toyota failed to tell the U.S. it was addressing the sticky pedals.

Privately, the automaker’s executives didn’t agree with either of the allegations, and they surely didn’t see their actions as criminal — but they were in no position, facing the overwhelming clout of the U.S. Justice Department, to fight the charges. If they were to go to trial, the publicity and negative headlines would be deadly to Toyota’s business.

The same awful dilemma faces Barra and GM if, as has been reported, the Justice Department via its Southern District of New York office is considering whether to slap the automaker with a criminal prosecution.  One might ask why the government wouldn’t take such a step and perhaps demand a much bigger fine, given the outcome of the Toyota case.

About the Author
By Doron Levin
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon

Latest in

CryptoBinance
Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s finally chosen a headquarters
By Ben WeissDecember 7, 2025
3 hours ago
Big TechStreaming
Trump warns Netflix-Warner deal may pose antitrust ‘problem’
By Hadriana Lowenkron, Se Young Lee and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
Big TechOpenAI
OpenAI goes from stock market savior to burden as AI risks mount
By Ryan Vlastelica and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
InvestingStock
What bubble? Asset managers in risk-on mode stick with stocks
By Julien Ponthus, Natalia Kniazhevich, Abhishek Vishnoi and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
Macron warns EU may hit China with tariffs over trade surplus
By James Regan and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
U.S. trade chief says China has complied with terms of trade deals
By Hadriana Lowenkron and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
8 hours ago

Most Popular

placeholder alt text
Real Estate
The 'Great Housing Reset' is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026, Redfin forecasts
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
AI
Nvidia CEO says data centers take about 3 years to construct in the U.S., while in China 'they can build a hospital in a weekend'
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
The most likely solution to the U.S. debt crisis is severe austerity triggered by a fiscal calamity, former White House economic adviser says
By Jason MaDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says Europe has a 'real problem’
By Katherine Chiglinsky and BloombergDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Big Tech
Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook for the metaverse. Four years and $70 billion in losses later, he’s moving on
By Eva RoytburgDecember 5, 2025
3 days ago
placeholder alt text
Politics
Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old unanimous ruling that limits presidential power on removing heads of independent agencies
By Mark Sherman and The Associated PressDecember 7, 2025
15 hours ago
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.