Product Liability

Boeing 737 MAX Deferred Prosecution Agreement Breach & Passenger Safety Class Action

Boeing 737 MAX Deferred Prosecution Agreement Breach & Passenger Safety Class Action — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Case Overview

The Boeing 737 MAX litigation is one of the most consequential aviation safety and corporate accountability cases in modern American legal history. Following two catastrophic crashes — Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 (189 deaths) and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019 (157 deaths) — investigations revealed that Boeing engineers and managers had concealed critical safety information about the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) from the FAA and airlines. In 2021, Boeing entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice, paying $2.5 billion and admitting its employees had deceived regulators, in exchange for avoiding criminal prosecution. Victims' families fought the DPA in court, arguing they were not properly consulted under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

In 2024, the DOJ determined Boeing had breached the DPA by failing to implement a fully compliant ethics and compliance program, reopening the door to criminal prosecution. In 2025, Boeing reached a new plea agreement pleading guilty to a single count of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States — a historic admission for a major U.S. defense and aerospace contractor. Parallel civil class actions on behalf of passengers who flew on 737 MAX aircraft and experienced fear, emotional distress, and economic harm continue in federal court alongside the wrongful death suits brought by the families of the 346 victims. The case has prompted sweeping FAA oversight reforms and congressional investigations into regulatory capture at the agency.

Who May Qualify

Families of the 346 individuals killed in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes, as well as passengers who flew aboard Boeing 737 MAX aircraft and suffered documented emotional distress, fear of flying, or economic harm related to the groundings and safety failures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Boeing plead guilty for the 737 MAX crashes?

Yes — in 2025, Boeing pleaded guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States as part of a new agreement with the DOJ after the government determined Boeing had violated its original 2021 Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Victims' families largely condemned the deal as insufficient.

Can 737 MAX crash victims' families still sue Boeing?

Many wrongful death claims have been settled individually under confidential agreements, but litigation continues for families who rejected earlier settlements and for passengers who suffered harm from the 737 MAX groundings. The criminal proceedings may affect the scope of remaining civil claims.

What was the MCAS defect that caused the 737 MAX crashes?

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was a flight control software that could force the aircraft's nose downward based on a single faulty sensor reading. Boeing concealed its operation from pilots and regulators; in both crashes, MCAS repeatedly activated against the pilots' inputs, making the planes uncontrollable.

Related Cases

$110M Transamerica Life Insurance Class Action Settlement — Product Liability class action lawsuit

$110M Transamerica Life Insurance Class Action Settlement

Past
Product Liability
Transamerica Life Insurance agreed to a $110 million settlement to resolve claims regarding its failure to properly credit certain cash value increases on specific life insurance policies. The settlement applies to policyholders who owned or owned a universal life insurance policy that was active on January 1, 2016, and was identified by certain product names or attribute codes.
Clorox Contaminated Cleaner Class Action — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Clorox Contaminated Cleaner Class Action

Current
Product Liability
A class action lawsuit alleges that The Clorox Company sold scented cleaning products, such as Mistolin and Lestoil, that were potentially contaminated with the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The plaintiffs claim the company failed to warn consumers about this danger, especially for those with weakened immune systems.
Hyundai Class Action Over Faulty Driver Monitoring System — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Hyundai Class Action Over Faulty Driver Monitoring System

Current
Product Liability
A class action lawsuit alleges that certain Hyundai vehicles are equipped with a defective direct driver monitoring system that compromises vehicle safety. The plaintiffs claim the system malfunctions, causing false alarms and sudden braking, and that the manufacturer was aware of the defect.