Editing General Motors (section)

==Controversies==
===Streetcar conspiracy===
{{Main|General Motors streetcar conspiracy}}

Between 1938 and 1950, GM allegedly deliberately monopolized the sale of buses and supplies to [[National City Lines]] (NCL) and its subsidiaries, in violation of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890]], intending to dismantle [[tram|streetcar]] systems in many cities in the United States and make buses, sold by GM, the dominant form of [[public transport]].{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

===Ralph Nader and the Corvair===
[[File:1960-63 Corvair.jpg|thumb|1961–63 Corvair swing-axle rear suspension]]
{{Main|Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile}}

''[[Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile]]'' by [[Ralph Nader]], published in 1965, is a book accusing [[car manufacturers]] of being slow to introduce [[safety]] features and reluctant to spend money on improving safety. It relates to the first models of the [[Chevrolet Corvair]] (1960–1964) that had a [[swing axle]] suspension design that was prone to 'tuck under' in certain circumstances. To compensate for the removal of a front stabilizer bar (anti-roll bar) as a cost-cutting measure, Corvairs required [[tire]] pressures that were outside of the tire manufacturer's recommended tolerances. The Corvair relied on an unusually high front to rear pressure differential (15 psi front, 26 psi rear, when cold; 18 psi and 30 psi hot), and if one inflated the tires equally, as was standard practice for all other cars at the time, the result was dangerous over-steer.<ref>{{cite news | last=CSERE| first=CSABA | title=General Motors Celebrates a 100-Year History of Technological Breakthroughs | url=https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15143719/general-motors-celebrates-a-100-year-history-of-technological-breakthroughs/ | work=Car and Driver |date=September 1, 2008 | archive-date=February 25, 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130225090611/http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/general-motors-celebrates-a-100-year-history-of-technological-breakthroughs|url-status=live}}</ref>

In early March 1966, several media outlets, including ''[[The New Republic]]'' and ''[[The New York Times]]'', alleged that GM had tried to discredit [[Ralph Nader]], hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2005/scene_longhine_novdec05.msp |title=Ralph Nader's museum of tort law will include relics from famous lawsuits{{snd}}if it ever gets built | date=December 2005 |website=LegalAffairs.org | archive-date=March 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080331074458/http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2005/scene_longhine_novdec05.msp |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | date=May 7, 2005 | work=Federal Highway Administration |url= https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/safetyep.cfm |title=President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Role in Highway Safety: Epilogue – The Changing Federal Role |archive-date=October 4, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004052209/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/safetyep.htm | url-status=live}}</ref> Nader sued the company for [[invasion of privacy]] and settled the case for $425,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the [[New York Court of Appeals]], whose opinion in the case expanded [[tort law]] to cover "overzealous surveillance".<ref>''Nader v. General Motors Corp.'', 307 N.Y.S.2d 647 (N.Y. 1970)</ref> Nader used the proceeds from the lawsuit to start the pro-consumer Center for Study of Responsive Law.

A 1972 safety commission report conducted by [[Texas A&M University]] concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.<ref>{{cite book | first1=Brent | last1=Fisse | first2=John |last2=Braithwaite |title=The Impact of Publicity on Corporate Offenders | publisher=State University of New York Press | year=1983 | page=30 | isbn=978-0-87395-732-8}}</ref> The [[United States Department of Transportation]] (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration|NHTSA]] testing from the previous year. NHTSA conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars{{snd}}a [[Ford Falcon (North America)|Ford Falcon]], [[Plymouth Valiant]], [[Volkswagen Beetle]], and [[Renault Dauphine]]{{snd}}along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling.<ref>{{citation | work=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |title=PB 211-015: Evaluation of the 1960–1963 Corvair Handling and Stability |date=July 1972 |publisher=National Technical Information Service}}</ref>

NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that 'the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests ... the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic'.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

In 1980, former GM executive [[John DeLorean]] wrote in his book ''On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors'' that Nader's criticisms were valid.<ref>{{cite book | first=John Z. | last=DeLorean | author-link=John DeLorean | title=On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors |page=[https://archive.org/details/oncleardayyoucan00delo/page/n66 51] | publisher=Avon | year=1980 | isbn=9780380517220 | url=https://archive.org/details/oncleardayyoucan00delo |url-access=registration}}</ref>

Journalist [[David E. Davis]] said that despite Nader's claim that swing-axle rear suspension were dangerous, [[Porsche]], [[Mercedes-Benz]], and [[Volkswagen]] all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era.<ref>{{cite news | title=American Driver: The Late Ralph Nader | first=David E. Jr. | last=Davis | work=Motor Trend |date=January 14, 2005 |url= https://www.motortrend.com/features/ralph-nader/ | archive-date=May 31, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531063818/http://www.automobilemag.com/features/columns/0502_ralph_nader/ | url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Mcgee v. General Motors Corp. ===
{{Excerpt|Mcgee v. General Motors Corp.}}

===Apartheid===
In 2002, GM (along with other multinational corporations) was sued by a group of South Africans represented by the [[:de:Khulumani|Khulumani Support Group]].<ref>{{Cite news |title=Suit Says Companies Aided Apartheid|work=The New York Times |date=November 13, 2002 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/13/world/suit-says-companies-aided-apartheid.html|access-date=May 5, 2023 |language=en-US}}</ref> The plaintiffs alleged that the company provided vehicles to the South African security forces during the [[Apartheid]]. The company settled with the plaintiffs in 2012, agreeing to pay a sum of up to $1.5 million.<ref>{{Cite news |title=GM settles with S.Africa apartheid victims|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/safrica-apartheid-gm-idCNL5E8E11YJ20120301|access-date=May 5, 2023 |website=reuters.com |date=March 2012 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Ignition switch recall===
{{Main|General Motors ignition switch recalls}}

In May 2014, the [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]] fined the company $35 million for failing to recall cars with faulty ignition switches for a decade, despite knowing there was a problem with the switches. General Motors paid compensation for 124 deaths linked to the faulty switches.<ref>{{cite news | title=GM compensation fund completes review with 124 deaths |url= https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2015/08/24/gm-ignition-fund-completes-review/32287697/ | first=David | last=Shepardson |newspaper=The Detroit News | date=August 24, 2015 | archive-date=March 9, 2017 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170309023749/http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2015/08/24/gm-ignition-fund-completes-review/32287697/ | url-status=live}}</ref> The $35 million fine was the maximum the regulator could impose.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/16/gm-recall-probe/9169355/ | title=GM to pay maximum $35 million fine for recall delay | first=James R. | last=Healey |work=USA Today |date=May 16, 2014}}</ref> The total cost of the recall was estimated to be $1.5 billion.<ref name=shell/> As well as the Cobalts, the switches of concern had been installed in many other cars, such as the Pontiac G5, the Saturn Ion, the Chevrolet HHR, the Saturn Sky, and Pontiac Solstice. The recall involved about 2.6 million GM cars worldwide.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/business/a-florida-engineer-unlocked-the-mystery-of-gms-ignition-flaw.html | title=An Engineer's Eureka Moment With a G.M. Flaw | first=Bill | last=Vlasic |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 28, 2014 | url-access=limited |archive-date=July 8, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708035715/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/business/a-florida-engineer-unlocked-the-mystery-of-gms-ignition-flaw.html?_r=2 | url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Forced Uyghur labor ===
In 2020, the [[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]] accused at least 82 major brands, including General Motors, of being connected to forced [[Uyghurs|Uyghur]] labor in [[Xinjiang]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |title=Uyghurs for sale |first1=Vicky Xiuzhong |last1=Xu |first2=Danielle |last2=Cave |first3=James |last3=Leibold |first4=Kelsey |last4=Munro |first5=Nathan |last5=Ruser |publisher=Australian Strategic Policy Institute |location=Australia |date=March 1, 2020 |access-date=March 15, 2022 |archive-date=August 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824215335/https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Sale of driver data to insurance companies ===
General Motors has come under criticism for collecting highly detailed driver data and selling the personal information to insurance companies without consumers' consent or knowledge. Texas Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]] sued General Motors on August 13, 2024, alleging that General Motors sold the information to at least two companies, [[LexisNexis Risk Solutions]] and [[Verisk Analytics]], who then sold the information to insurance companies.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-selling-driver-data-car-insurers-texas-lawsuit/ |title=GM is selling driver data to insurers without consumers' knowledge, Texas AG alleges |first1=Aimee |last1= Picchi |publisher=CBS News |date=August 15, 2024 |access-date=August 15, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/business/texas-sues-general-motors-driver-data/index.html |title=Texas sues General Motors, alleging illegal selling of driver data  |first1=Ramishah |last1= Maruf |publisher=CNN Business |date=August 14, 2024 |access-date=August 15, 2024}}</ref>