Audi of America sold me a plug-in hybrid Q5 at a premium price, then disabled its EV functionality due to a recall, leaving me with a heavier, less efficient gas-powered SUV Herndon Virginia

It's just like any other recall for a car that's long out of warranty.  They say there should be a fix in a few months.  If your car is used and not under warranty I don't see how you could have any kind of lemon law claim.  But even if it was under warranty, you don't have a lemon law claim, since this isn't a failure that affects your ability to use the car in any substantial way.  That's like trying to make a lemon law claim because a cupholder is broken or the heated seat doesn't work.  Yeah, it's annoying to have a feature that doesn't work, but that's how it goes when you invest in first-generation technology.

To those downplaying this recall: how would you feel if you paid a premium for a plug-in hybrid, with the vehicle still under warranty, and the electric functionality hasn’t worked for nearly six months—with no stated timeline for a fix?

This isn’t a cupholder issue or a heated seat failure. Audi sold us a plug-in hybrid. That’s what we paid for. Now we want to sell the car and upgrade to a functional PHEV—but we can’t without taking a serious hit on resale value given the open recall. Why? Because Audi disabled the EV functionality and hasn’t restored it.

The car still technically “drives,” sure—but we didn’t buy it just to run on gas. We bought it for the fuel savings, the environmental benefit, and the ability to drive electric for local trips. All of that is gone. The car no longer functions as advertised or as we intended to use it.

We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for Audi to do right by its customers. If they can’t deliver a fix in a reasonable timeframe, they should offer compensation or buybacks—so owners can invest in the type of vehicle they thought they were buying in the first place.

This is about accountability—not excuses.

 Almost every time I find what Flint says is full of wisdom, correct and right on target. This time I have to differ. You bought this car based on the advertised features and capabilities. You are not able to use those capabilities due to their problem and not because of abuse or something you did. However, there are some variables here. You cite Virginia but you seem to be in Utah. The so-called Lemon Law depends upon where you bought this car because provisions may be different between the two states. Secondly, the car is not new. That may be a factor. I have not had any Lemon Law matters to deal with and don't even remember reading through any case's legal briefs. I suggest you run this past an attorney who has experience in this area. If that attorney can't pursue redress under the LL, perhaps he or she can file an action to get you a settlement. An experienced attorney who has been successful with matters of warranty such as the Magnuson-Moss Act sections which may be applicable may also know if there have been other actions against Audi in regard to this specific causal condition. Perhaps the best advice I can give you at this juncture, is to NOT roll over and play doormat. The value of that car has decreased because of that problem they allegedly cannot or will not resolve and secondarily, you bought that car for these features and that's not what you received! So then, you have homework. Call your local bar association and see if they can recommend an attorney experienced in these matters EXPERIENCE is the key word here and when you talk to a attorney, ask if this can be a contingent fee case or can legal fees be borne by the manufacturer. I wish you well!

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights—I truly appreciate your thoughtful perspective. Since I purchased the vehicle nearly three years ago and it now has 48K miles, I don’t believe it qualifies for Utah’s Lemon Law, as too much time has passed. That said, I completely agree that consulting an attorney with expertise in warranty law, the Magnuson-Moss Act, or similar cases against Audi could be a productive next step. I also appreciate your emphasis on standing firm and advocating for fair treatment—it’s an important reminder. I’ll be sure to do my due diligence in pursuing a resolution.

Saying there’s no issue because the car still runs on gas is like claiming a brand-new smartphone with a dead touchscreen is fully functional just because it can still make calls. The purchase agreement between Audi and us was for Audi to deliver a fully functioning plug-in hybrid, yet its electric function—one of its core features—has been inoperable for over five months with no fix in sight. That’s not a minor inconvenience; it’s a fundamental failure to deliver the product as advertised. If Audi marketed and priced it as a PHEV, they should either fix the issue promptly, provide a comparable loaner, or offer a buyback at a fair price—one that doesn’t discount the recalled battery. Customers shouldn’t be expected to accept a partially functional vehicle, especially when the defect undermines the very reason they chose this model in the first place.

 You bought a hybrid. You are driving a hybrid. There is no issue, other than that it's not plug- in charging at the moment. I am sure it still has much better fuel efficiency than the gas-only version. There is absolutely zero reason for them to give you a loaner, given that your car still runs fine and is 100% functional, just not using your choice of fuel. About the only thing you might have a claim for is whatever the difference in fuel economy would be. And believe it or not, engineering issues take time to investigate, fix, test, manufacture, and roll out the fix. It's not something that happens in a month or two. If you don't want to deal with such issues, don't buy brand-new models. Cars that have been in production for a couple of years have exponentially fewer problems.