In 2015, the public discovered Volkswagen using a defeat device to cheat emissions tests for nearly 600,000 diesel-injected vehicles. Without the defeat device, Volkswagen’s relevant diesel engine vehicles would not have earned EPA Certificates of Conformity. Implicated in the scandal was Bosch, a parts supplier that allegedly developed and manufactured the defeat devices used to illegally pass the emissions test. Bosch also hid knowledge of the defeat device from federal regulators when concerns were raised about the emissions controls systems in some diesel vehicles.

Although Volkswagen has admitted wrongdoing, Bosch denies any claim of wrongdoing. This denial plays a part in Justice Breyer’s approval of a class action settlement between Bosch and the class action plaintiffs that took place in a fairness hearing on May 11, 2017. One of the 9th Circuit Court’s rationale to prefer settlements, as cited by Justice Breyer, is to reduce the cost to the legal system. Breyer also states that because Bosch denied the allegations of wrongdoing, the plaintiff’s case against Bosch is weaker than the plaintiff’s case against Volkswagen and therefore the aforementioned factor favored settlement. To what extent should lowering costs outweigh the predilection for justice? Considering the cost of a protracted legal battle, which stakeholders did Bosch consider when it decided to settle despite denying any wrongdoing?