Introduction
Recently, there has been an upward spiral in consumer-related lawsuits worth billions of shillings. The high numbers have been linked to consumer awareness and increased oversight by regulatory bodies. One such company that lost big due to such consumer issues is Takata.
In 2017 the company was fined $1 billion by the U.S. Department of Justice for hiding information concerning its defective airbag inflators (Padmanabhan, 2017). The fine was the largest ever imposed in a criminal case involving an auto parts supplier. It constituted part of the settlement with the U.S. government as the company pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud for falsification of testing reports to carmakers, consequently misleading customers on the safety of its airbags, translating to multiple deaths and injuries as they would explode in a car crash and send metal shrapnel flying into the vehicle (Padmanabhan, 2017).
In this regard, this paper describes the company and analyzes the airbags issue based on allegations of wire fraud, false advertising, and consumer protection law violations. Further, it analyzes the case from two contrasting ethical theories, including an analysis of product liability, bankruptcy, and securities and stock trading with relevant recommendations provided.
Company Description
Takata Kabushiki Gaisha, popular as Takata Corporation, was an automotive parts company specializing in manufacturing and supplying automotive safety products such as seat belts, airbag systems, and steering wheels. The Takada family founded the company in 1933 and was headquartered in Tokyo, Japan (Atadero, 2022). At its peak, it was among the suppliers of the leading airbag globally, with its products installed in millions of vehicles by major automakers such as BMW, Toyota, Honda, Ford, and Nissan.
With its business booming, the company still had to deal with intense competition and continuous pressure to meet the demands of substantial automakers at faster delivery times and lower prices (Atadero, 2022). With this extreme pressure, the company sought a way of meeting the needs of its consumers, and with a lack of proper quality controls; it resorted to using inadequate and potentially dangerous airbag inflators.
As a result, in the early 2000s, its airbags were discovered to be defective with susceptibility to exploding in a car crash, sending metal shrapnel flying into the vehicles (Atadero, 2022). An inquiry ensued due to the consumer issue prompting the largest automotive recall in history and legal charges.
Legal Issues and Regulatory Environment
Legal Issues
As a result of Takata’s violations, various legal issues emerged, especially regarding the U.S. regulatory environment, which took up the case. Each problem had specific laws connected to it, which made the firm liable for the accusations that were lodged against it at the time. The allegations included wire fraud, false advertising, and consumer protection law violations involving its exploding airbags.
Wire Fraud
Wire fraud is a federal crime that emanates from using wire communication, including the internet, email, or telephones, to deliberately defraud another out of property or money. In the U.S., it is covered under the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and is punishable by substantial fines and imprisonment. Per the statute, wire fraud encompasses any artifice or scheme to obtain property or money through fraudulent pretenses, promises, or representations often transmitted in foreign or interstate commerce through television, radio, or wire communication. It covers any pictures, sounds, writings, signals, and signs that are used with the objective of the execution of such schemes.
Based on this definition, Takata was found liable for wire fraud and was charged. This was in connection with the organization’s continuous sale and supply of defective airbag inflators. The allegations emerged because the company was found to have utilized fraudulent and false promises, pretenses, and representations to automakers to make sales (Turner, 2020). This was although it was aware of the defective nature of its airbag deflators and the severe risk they posed to eventual consumers.
Furthermore, the company engaged in a scheme to conceal and falsify test reports, including the provision of falsified test reports through interstate wire communications, which led to it making sales and misleading customers on the scope and extent of its airbags’ safety (Chambers, 2019). Apart from the money gained, the airbags caused actual harm to various consumers, including death and injuries from unstable ammonium nitrate used as a propellant because of its cost.
As such, in the case of United States v. Takata Corporation et al., 17-cr-20585 (E.D. Mich.), which was the reference for the judgment, the corporation and three of its subsidiaries pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. They thus agreed to pay $1 billion in fines and restitution (Chambers, 2019). The case thus continues to serve as an example of wire fraud and the Federal Wire Fraud Statute application, highlighting the dire consequences of such fraudulent conduct and the essence of ethical behavior and corporate responsibility, especially in the automotive industry.
False Advertising and Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
The other allegation against Takata was false advertising which called deceptive advertising. This refers to the intentional act of making misleading, inaccurate, and deceptive claims attached to a particular product or service to induce consumer purchases and optimize sales. Under federal law, such acts are illegal, as provided by The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.) and the various state consumer protection laws that regulate it. Through the act, the Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C.) is mandated to regulate and enforce the law against such practices.
In the context of this consumer issue, Takata Corporation was found to have contravened the provisions of The Federal Trade Commission Act. This is because, in their plight to make profits from their airbags which they were well aware were defective, they made misleading and false statements regarding their safety. This is false advertising considering Takata failed to disclose all the information about tests conducted on the airbags and their performance (United States V. Tanaka et al.).
As such, the F.T.C. accused it of inducing consumer purchases with the belief that the airbags involved were as reliable and safe as possible. As such, the F.T.C. asserted that had consumers and carmakers been made aware of the defects which Takata omitted and falsified advertising information, their decision to purchase the airbags would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the corporation’s acts violated various state consumer protection laws, making it liable to make amends. An example is the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act which holds that consumers must be remedied for any harm, such as the deaths and injuries that were suffered due to the defective airbags resulting from purchases made due to the company’s deceitful trade practices (United States V. Tanaka et al.).
In addition, there are specific state laws such as California Business and Professions Code, Section 17500, New York General Business Law, Section 349, and even the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 17, Subchapter E to mention a few.
Regulatory Environment
Nonetheless, the regulatory environment is more often than not structured and designed to protect consumers from harm and promote accountability on the side of companies. These are usually enforced by government agencies such as F.T.C., ensuring that companies such as Takata are subjected to strict oversight and regulations.
As already identified, the F.T.C. took action against Takata’s deceptive advertising and its violation of various consumer protection laws (Consumer Reports, 2023). It thus took a lead role in pursuing civil penalties against Takata for its falsified advertising and misleading statements on the safety of its products.
Another critical agency that defined the regulatory environment within the automotive industry that Takata was operating in was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The agency is a division of the U.S. Transportation Department. It is primarily responsible for ensuring federal motor vehicle standards are enforced and the safety of motor vehicles and associated equipment is provided.
As such, it issued recalls to the cars equipped with faulty airbags and imposed fines on the company for its manufacture and sale of poor-quality airbags (Consumer Reports, 2023). This shows the extent to which the regulatory environment is strict, with a keen interest in ensuring consumer protection with government agencies taking a lead role.
Ethical Dilemma and Ethical Frameworks
Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma presented by Takata Corporation in the consumer issue of its exploding airbags involves the tension and friction between the company’s duty to promote and sell safe products and its inherent desire to maximize profits which essentially motivated it to hide information on the defects and make deceptive representations on their safety.
Ethical Frameworks
In light of the aforementioned ethical dilemma, two conflicting ethical frameworks arise. The first is utilitarianism which the management followed, and its application is apparent in the decision-making that led to the problem. The other framework is deontology which contrasts the step taken by the organization and might have resulted in a different situation. With it, the organization would not have found itself in the consumer predicament, let alone file for bankruptcy and be purchased.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework that is more concerned about the consequences of an action rather than the motives behind the same activity. As such, it assesses and evaluates the morality of actions and decisions based on their effect on society’s overall happiness. Thus, it is based on the notion that happiness is the ultimate aim in human life and should be maximized while suffering is minimized.
In this regard, the proponents of the theory hold that an action is only ethical if it leads to the most significant amount of happiness for the greatest number of individuals (Yu et al., 2022). As such, the approach, in many cases, supports actions that may appear unethical in the view of other ethical frameworks.
In light of Takata’s decision to continue the airbags’ production, sale, and supply despite being aware of their defects, the management was likely guided by utilitarianism based on the theory’s principles. Essentially, the corporation overlooked its tests and findings on the flaws and went ahead even to falsify documentation to entice carmakers and consumers on the safety of their products.
In doing this, they were looking at maximizing profit which, per utilitarianism, can be linked to the ultimate goal of optimizing happiness (Yu et al., 2022). Further still, they wanted to retain their good reputation for quality, affordable products, contributing significantly to their satisfaction and overall happiness.
Moreover, when they were making sales, their choice to produce defective airbags seemed to have led to the greatest good for the most significant number of people. Due to their affordability, this is because they could secure supply contracts with several car companies responsible for producing and selling millions of vehicles globally (Yu et al., 2022). This meant that their products were making the most people harm, making their decision ethical.
Additionally, even when the first concerns started to be raised, Takata continued with production and supply as those were just isolated cases that were incomparable to the millions of others who were benefitting, which drove the management to continual deception and misrepresentation on the safety of the airbags.
Deontology
Deontology is an ethical framework that holds that specific actions are inherently wrong regardless of the consequences. Deontologists believe that right and wrong are based on the nature of the act and not just the results (Chen, 2019). In this regard, the framework is guided by the notion of obligation or duty, wherein individuals have moral duties to fulfill despite the outcomes. These duties are derived from universal, morally acceptable rules, such as the duty to respect the rights of others and the duty to be truthful at all times (Chen, 2019). As such, for a deontologist, even if an action results in a negative consequence, it should be followed so long as it is aligned with moral rules and duties.
In line with this theory, Takata would have prioritized its duty and obligation to produce and sell safe products regardless of whether they were optimizing its profits. In this regard, when the company changed to a cheaper raw material and realized that it was unsafe, they would have been obliged to their moral duty of safe products and stopped production using the hazardous material and shifted back to the material everyone else was using despite the competition and drop in sales it might have had (Chen, 2019).
Additionally, the company would have been obliged to ensure that it does not misrepresent any of its products and tells the truth to carmakers and consumers. Therefore, the management would have presented the correct test reports, even if it would have destroyed its reputation and harmed it financially.
In this regard, had the company been guided by the deontological view of ethical decision-making, it would have prioritized its duty to safe airbags and transparency in operations. As such, it would have overlooked the profit potential in the short term as it would have just been a means to an end (Chen, 2019).
Consequently, Takata would have been devoid of the harm to consumers and the massive financial and legal consequences that arose from its deception and lack of consideration of its duties and obligations as required by deontology. As such, it would still have been in operation, making consistent profits and not just focusing on sales while hurting consumers.
Other Legal Topics
Apart from Takata’s consumer protection laws issues, the company has been riddled with other legal issues. These include product liability, bankruptcy, and securities and stock trading.
Product Liability
Product liability is the legal concept that holds manufacturers, sellers, and distributors responsible for any injuries caused by product defects. The issue is based on the notion that consumers should not be pushed into bearing the cost of deaths or damages resulting from the use and continuous of defective products (del Riego, 2021). Such issues often are linked to strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty with associations to the problem of wrongful death, mainly when death results from using the product.
In the context of Takata’s business operations, the company faced multiple product liability lawsuits from consumers who were either injured or killed by using the company’s defective airbags. This led to the case re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (1:15-md-02599-WHP).
The case was multidistrict litigation (MDL), which consolidated the various product liability lawsuits lodged against Takata (del Riego, 2021). The plaintiffs claimed that the company was responsible for the injuries they had suffered from using its products as they had failed to warn them of the danger they faced from using the airbags (del Riego, 2021). Eventually, the case was resolved through a settlement where the court held that it was liable for product liability and thus had to compensate the plaintiffs for injuries and deaths from the company’s defective airbags.
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy is a legal process that allows businesses and individuals to manage their financial obligations and discharge their debts efficiently. There are several bankruptcy types, including Chapter 7, which includes debtors’ assets liquidation to offset money owed to creditors, and Chapter 11, which allows debtors to reorganize finances and continue operating their businesses. Takata, in this case, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2017 (The Associated Press, 2018). This was to enable it to make rearrangements and sort its issues.
Takata’s filing for bankruptcy followed the massive case that involved its defective airbags. With the NHTSA recalling millions of airbags and various lawsuits facing the firm, it was forced to find a way of reorganizing finances as it could not keep up with its reputation, which was already damaged by the cases (The Associated Press, 2018). As a result of the bankruptcy suit in re: Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-50552 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. June 26, 2017), it was able to reorganize finances and reach a settlement with its multiple plaintiffs and creditors.
Securities and Stock Trading
Securities and stock trading is the practice of purchasing and selling stocks and securities in the stock market, including exchange-traded funds (ETFs). In line with this legal topic, Takata engaged in this trade on the Tokyo Stock Exchange as a publicly traded company. In 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) fined the company for providing misleading and false information concerning the safety of its airbag investors (Jiji, 2019). The commission realized that the company had failed to disclose information on the risks concerning its airbags and its failure to report warranty claims related to the product. The company was further investigated for securities laws violations, including insider trading.
General Recommendations
The case of Takata serves as a reference to various critical issues that business leaders and managers can learn from for their businesses’ successful operation and management. From it, multiple recommendations are drawn, which businesses can learn from. Primarily, companies should ensure that they comply strictly with the law within the jurisdictions in which they operate. It covers both federal and state laws protecting issues such as consumer protection and even environmental regulation. With such compliance, businesses are safe from significant legal consequences that arise.
Another recommendation is that businesses ensure that they are transparent in their operations. In this regard, providing all the information surrounding their products and services and being clear about the risks and benefits of the same is a priority. With this, consumers gain elevated confidence in what they consume as they are made aware of both the good and bad aspects of the product they interact with. This recommendation extends to prioritizing consumer needs and safety. In doing so, they should be keen on conducting rigorous tests and analyses and addressing any issues that arise from the assessments.
Furthermore, firms must ensure that they take the necessary risk management measures. This includes plans for foreseen and unforeseen risks that cripple their operations. In this regard, considerations must be made for having contingency plans and even funds for addressing any of these risks if and when they occur.
The final recommendation is to ensure that they stay ethical. In compliance with this recommendation, business managers must ensure that they are guided by a moral compass that is comprehensive and on that is consistent with their duties and obligations to the law and its consumers. As such, ethicality should be integrated into all decision-making levels, prioritizing morals that stick to what is right.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Takata was the subject of consumer violations with its defective airbags. The company continued production despite being aware that these products posed a great danger to its users. This led to various legal issues, such as wire fraud and false advertising. From an ethical perspective, it is clear that the company’s actions present utilitarianism, while the framework they should have prioritized is deontology.
Apart from the consumer issue, the company has been riddled with bankruptcy, securities and stock trading, and product liability. From these, other businesses and their managers can learn the essence of law compliance, customer safety prioritization, transparency, risk management, and prioritization of ethical considerations. As such, businesses must be considerate and keen to avoid going the Takata way.
References
Atadero, J. (2022). Why the Takata airbag scandal was the worst recall in automotive history. HotCars. Web.
Chambers, J. (2019). U.S. D.O.J.: Takata pleads guilty to pay $1b in criminal penalties. Podhurst. Web.
Chen, Y. (2019). Deontology to judge the ethical business actions: The case of Takata. Open Journal of Business and Management, 07(02), 783–787. Web.
Consumer Reports. (2023). Takata Airbag recall: Everything you need to know. Consumer Reports. Web.
del Riego, A. (2021). Deconstructing fallacies in products liability law to provide a remedy for economic loss. American Business Law Journal, 58(2), 387–447. Web.
Jiji. (2019). Former Takata employees accused of insider trading. The Japan Times. Web.
Padmanabhan, K. (2017). Takata fined $1 billion for hiding information on exploding car airbags. CorpWatch. Web.
The Associated Press. (2018). Takata settles with injured drivers to exit bankruptcy. U.S.A. Today. Web.
Turner, T. (2020). Takata airbag lawsuits and settlements: Explosions & recall. Consumer Notice, L.L.C. Web.
United States v. Tanaka et al. (The United States Department of Justice, 2022).
Yu, Q., Mo, L., Jiayao, W., Yujin, C., & Wei, L. (2022). Analysis of the importance of corporate ethics to modern manufacturing enterprises: A case study on Takata. Journal of Economics, Business, and Management, 10(1), 46–51. Web.