Item 3. Legal Proceedings (Continued)

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.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings (Continued)

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.