FORD MOTOR CO

The litigation process is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. See Note 24 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for a discussion of loss contingencies. Following is a discussion of our significant pending legal proceedings:

PRODUCT LIABILITY MATTERS

We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts within and outside of the United States alleging damages from injuries resulting from (or aggravated by) alleged defects in our vehicles. In many actions, no monetary amount of damages is specified or the specific amount alleged is the jurisdictional minimum. Our experience with litigation alleging a specific amount of damages suggests that such amounts, on average, bear little relation to the actual amount of damages, if any, that we will pay in resolving such matters.

In addition to pending actions, we assess the likelihood of incidents that likely have occurred but not yet been reported to us. We also take into consideration specific matters that have been raised as claims but have not yet proceeded to litigation. Individual product liability matters that have more than a remote risk of loss and such loss would likely be significant if the matter is resolved unfavorably to us would be described herein. Currently there are no such matters to report.

Below is a product liability matter currently pending against Ford:

Hill v. Ford. Plaintiffs in this product liability action pending in Georgia state court allege that the roof of a 2002 Ford F-250 involved in a rollover accident was defectively designed. During the first trial in 2018, the judge declared a mistrial, ruled that Ford’s attorneys had violated pre-trial rulings while presenting evidence, and sanctioned Ford by prohibiting Ford from introducing any evidence at the second trial to show that the roof design of the F-250 was not defective. During the second trial in August 2022, a jury found that Pep Boys (the party that sold the tires on the vehicle involved in the rollover accident) was responsible for 30% of the damages, and Ford, as a direct result of the sanctions order prohibiting Ford from presenting its defense, was responsible for 70% of the damages, resulting in $16.8 million in damages being apportioned to Ford. The jury subsequently awarded punitive damages against Ford in the amount of $1.7 billion. We filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial, and on September 14, 2023, the trial court denied our post-trial motions. On October 13, 2023, Ford filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on November 1, 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial. On November 7, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their notice of intent to petition the Georgia Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and on December 19, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their petition with the Georgia Supreme Court. Ford filed its response to the petition on February 5, 2025.

ASBESTOS MATTERS

Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims.

Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. Some of these cases may also involve multiple plaintiffs, and we may be unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and unasserted claims.

CONSUMER MATTERS

We provide warranties on the vehicles we sell. Warranties are offered for specific periods of time and/or mileage and vary depending upon the type of product and the geographic location of its sale. Pursuant to these warranties, we will repair, replace, or adjust parts on a vehicle that are defective in factory-supplied materials or workmanship during the specified warranty period. Software updates are increasingly a component of vehicle service and may be performed during warranty coverage repairs, through field service actions, or through over-the-air updates. We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts alleging breach of warranty and claiming damages based on state and federal consumer protection laws. Remedies under these statutes may include vehicle repurchase, civil penalties, and payment by Ford of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. In some cases, plaintiffs also include an allegation of fraud. Remedies for a fraud claim may include contract rescission, vehicle repurchase, and punitive damages. Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.

The cost of these litigation matters is included in our warranty costs. We accrue obligations for warranty costs at the time of sale using a patterned estimation model that includes historical information regarding the nature, frequency, and average cost of claims for each vehicle line by model year. We reevaluate the adequacy of our accruals on a regular basis.

We are currently a defendant in a significant number of litigation matters relating to the performance of vehicles, including those equipped with DPS6 transmissions.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We have received notices under various federal and state environmental laws that we (along with others) are or may be a potentially responsible party for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling, or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. We also may have been a generator of hazardous substances at a number of other sites. The amount of any such costs or damages for which we may be held responsible could be significant. Any legal proceeding arising under any federal, state, or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, in which (i) a governmental authority is a party, and (ii) we believe there is the possibility of monetary sanctions (exclusive of interest and costs) in excess of $1,000,000 is described herein.

On June 16, 2022, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Bergen County) seeking natural resource damages and other claims related to the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site located in Ringwood, New Jersey. On February 21, 2023, the court denied our motion to dismiss. We continue to defend against the NJDEP’s allegations.

CLASS ACTIONS

In light of the fact that few of the purported class actions filed against us in the past have been certified by the courts as class actions, in general we list those actions that (i) have been certified as a class action by a court of competent jurisdiction (and any additional purported class actions that raise allegations substantially similar to an existing and certified class), and (ii) have more than a remote risk of loss, and such loss would likely be significant if the action is resolved unfavorably to us. At this time, we have no such class actions filed against us.

OTHER MATTERS

Brazilian Tax Matters. One Brazilian state (São Paulo) and the Brazilian federal tax authority currently have outstanding substantial tax assessments against Ford Motor Company Brasil Ltda. (“Ford Brazil”) related to state and federal tax incentives Ford Brazil received for its operations in the Brazilian state of Bahia. The São Paulo assessment is part of a broader conflict among various states in Brazil. The federal legislature enacted laws designed to encourage the states to end that conflict, and in 2017 the states reached an agreement on a framework for resolution. Ford Brazil continues to pursue a resolution under the framework and expects the amount of any remaining assessments by the states to be resolved under that framework. The federal assessments are outside the scope of the legislation.

All of the outstanding assessments have been appealed to the relevant administrative court of each jurisdiction. To proceed with an appeal within the judicial court system, an appellant may be required to post collateral. To date, we have not been required to post any collateral. If we are required to post collateral, which could be in excess of $1 billion, we expect it to be in the form of fixed assets, surety bonds, and/or letters of credit, but we may be required to post cash collateral. Although the ultimate resolution of these matters may take many years, we consider our overall risk of loss to be remote.

European Commission and U.K. Competition and Markets Authority Matter. On March 15, 2022, the European Commission (the “Commission”) and the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”) conducted unannounced inspections at the premises of, and sent formal requests for information to, several companies and associations active in the automotive sector, including Ford. The inspections and requests for information concern possible collusion in relation to the collection, treatment, and recovery of end-of-life cars and vans (“ELVs”). We understand that the scope of the investigations includes determining whether manufacturers and importers of passenger cars and vans agreed to an approach to (i) the compensation of ELV collection, treatment, and recovery companies, and (ii) the use of data relating to the recyclability or recoverability of ELVs in marketing materials, and whether such conduct violates relevant competition laws. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the Commission and/or CMA, including imposing a fine and/or the prohibition or restriction of certain business practices. We are continuing to cooperate with the Commission and the CMA.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Consent Order. On November 13, 2024, Ford entered into a consent order (the “Consent Order”) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) to resolve, without an admission of liability, allegations made by NHTSA following its investigation into whether a recall conducted by Ford in 2020 addressing rearview camera performance was timely under NHTSA’s regulations. The Consent Order includes a $165 million civil penalty, which consists of a $65 million cash payment from Ford, $55 million held in abeyance subject to Ford’s adherence to the terms of the Consent Order, and $45 million that Ford will use to invest in advanced data analytics, a new testing facility, and certain other projects to enhance compliance with NHTSA’s requirements. In addition, during the term of the Consent Order, Ford has agreed to submit a monthly Safety Evaluation List (“SEL”) to NHTSA and to meet with NHTSA each quarter to review and answer NHTSA’s questions about any of the issues on the SEL. Further, Ford has hired an independent third party selected by NHTSA to assess the Company’s adherence to the Consent Order and Vehicle Safety Act over the term of the Consent Order and to report on Ford’s progress to NHTSA. Ford has also committed to review prior recalls over the past three years to ensure that all impacted vehicles were captured. In the event Ford determines that it must add more vehicles to the population, the Company will update the applicable recalls. The term of the Consent Order is three years, and it may be extended for one additional year at NHTSA’s discretion.