2024 CADILLAC LYRIQ

Sunroof/moonroof cracked without any impact or signs of impact.

We own a 2024 Cadillac Lyriq EV. We began experiencing safety concerns related to battery performance and overall vehicle reliability during the active bumper-to-bumper warranty period. These concerns were reported to an authorized GM dealer, Napleton Cadillac, prior to warranty expiration. Service records at Napleton Cadillac document the history of these complaints. The vehicle has been unable to process required over-the-air (OTA) software updates through GM's intended automated update process. During a dealer visit on February 17, 2026, at GM's direction, the Napleton Cadillac service technician confirmed that the vehicle had multiple open notices and that our reported concerns are consistent with known issues affecting the 2024 Cadillac Lyriq across multiple units — indicating this is not an isolated occurrence. The dealer advised that correcting the update failure would require approximately five hours of manual labor at an estimated cost of $1,250 — a cost GM has declined to cover, despite the fact that the OTA update process is the manufacturer's intended method for delivering safety-critical corrections and the failure to update is a vehicle deficiency, not a customer-caused condition. Due to these unresolved safety concerns, we have not been driving the vehicle. We do not have confidence that the vehicle is operating safely or as designed. We formally requested a repurchase from General Motors through the EV Concierge program (Case No. 87486271). That request was denied on March 14, 2026, citing two rationales: (1) the vehicle is out of warranty, and (2) system updates do not qualify for repurchase. We believe these rationales fail to account for the fact that the original safety complaints were filed during the warranty period and that the root issue is battery and system safety — not a routine software preference. We are filing this complaint to create a formal federal safety record and to request that NHTSA evaluate an investigation or recall.

COMPONENT: Vehicle Speed Control — Automatic Emergency Braking / Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) COMPLAINT: I am filing this complaint to report a POST-REMEDY FAILURE of the repair performed under NHTSA Safety Recall 24V589 (GM Program #N242453471) on my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq AWD. RECALL REMEDY COMPLETED: My vehicle received the Electronic Brake Control Module (EBCM) software update on August 13, 2024, under GM Program #N242453471. The recall was marked "Complete" by the servicing dealership on that date. FAILURE INCIDENT: On March 15, 2026, at low speed (under 25 mph) on a dry surface, my Lyriq failed to activate its Automatic Emergency Braking system while approaching a stationary object. The vehicle did not decelerate or stop as designed. The ABS system appeared to release braking pressure rather than maintain it, allowing the vehicle to continue forward and strike the object. The front grille assembly sustained significant physical damage as a direct result. This failure is identical in nature to the defect described in Recall 24V589 — specifically, the ABS falsely activating and releasing braking pressure during low-speed operation on a dry surface — despite the recall remedy having been applied and certified complete ten months prior. SAFETY CONCERN: The software remedy applied under Recall 24V589 did not correct the defect on my vehicle. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the EBCM software update as a remedy across all affected vehicles. If other vehicles received the same software update and the defect persists, there is a significant ongoing safety risk to the public. I am requesting that NHTSA: Investigate whether the Recall 24V589 remedy (EBCM software update) has been effective across all affected vehicles Determine whether a supplemental or revised recall remedy is necessary Require GM/Cadillac to cover physical damages resulting from this post-remedy failure I have also contacted Cadillac Customer Care direct

COMPONENT: Vehicle Speed Control — Automatic Emergency Braking / Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) COMPLAINT: I am filing this complaint to report a POST-REMEDY FAILURE of the repair performed under NHTSA Safety Recall 24V589 (GM Program #N242453471) on my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq AWD. RECALL REMEDY COMPLETED: My vehicle received the Electronic Brake Control Module (EBCM) software update on August 13, 2024, under GM Program #N242453471. The recall was marked "Complete" by the servicing dealership on that date. FAILURE INCIDENT: On March 15, 2026, at low speed (under 25 mph) on a dry surface, my Lyriq failed to activate its Automatic Emergency Braking system while approaching a stationary object. The vehicle did not decelerate or stop as designed. The ABS system appeared to release braking pressure rather than maintain it, allowing the vehicle to continue forward and strike the object. The front grille assembly sustained significant physical damage as a direct result. This failure is identical in nature to the defect described in Recall 24V589 — specifically, the ABS falsely activating and releasing braking pressure during low-speed operation on a dry surface — despite the recall remedy having been applied and certified complete ten months prior. SAFETY CONCERN: The software remedy applied under Recall 24V589 did not correct the defect on my vehicle. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the EBCM software update as a remedy across all affected vehicles. If other vehicles received the same software update and the defect persists, there is a significant ongoing safety risk to the public. I am requesting that NHTSA: Investigate whether the Recall 24V589 remedy (EBCM software update) has been effective across all affected vehicles Determine whether a supplemental or revised recall remedy is necessary Require GM/Cadillac to cover physical damages resulting from this post-remedy failure I have also contacted Cadillac Customer Care direct

The contact owns a 2024 Cadillac Lyriq. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view safety sensor alert did not function as intended. In addition, the contact stated that the auto-braking safety sensor did not activate. The contact's vehicle crashed into a tree. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The contact stated that the case was denied. In addition, contact was denied to receive any documents providing the decision of the case. The failure mileage was approximately 18,125.

The contact owns a 2024 Cadillac Lyriq. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view safety sensor alert did not function as intended. In addition, the contact stated that the auto-braking safety sensor did not activate. The contact's vehicle crashed into a tree. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The contact stated that the case was denied. In addition, contact was denied to receive any documents providing the decision of the case. The failure mileage was approximately 18,125.

I experienced a complete electrical failure in my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq that prevented access to the vehicle while an infant was inside. The incident occurred when the vehicle’s 12-volt battery system failed, causing a total loss of electrical power and rendering the vehicle completely unresponsive. As a result of this failure, all electronic entry systems stopped functioning and the exterior door handles remained in the locked position. There were no warning signs or error messages communicated from the vehicle. Because the vehicle could not be unlocked or accessed from the outside, an infant was trapped inside the vehicle for approximately 27 minutes. Cadillac has been contacted and they confirmed a faulty 12 volt battery and since then replaced the battery. The incident was recorded by home security cameras and documentation has been preserved. This event raises a serious safety concern. A failure of the 12-volt battery should not disable all methods of entry into a vehicle, particularly when the design of the Cadillac Lyriq uses electronically actuated exterior door handles that remain recessed and locked without electrical power. This creates a situation in which occupants may be trapped inside the vehicle with no reliable means for outside access. The inability to unlock or mechanically access the vehicle during a power failure presents a significant risk of injury or death, particularly in situations involving children, extreme temperatures, or medical emergencies.

Component: Electronic Stability Control / Navigation / GPS Complaint: Since the February 2026 over-the-air software update, the built-in Google Maps GPS has been severely malfunctioning. The system consistently fails to update my vehicle’s location, showing me as stationary at my home address even after driving for 30+ minutes and 20+ miles away. This is not an intermittent glitch — it renders the native navigation system completely unusable after nearly every drive. Prior to the February 2026 update, the GPS functioned perfectly. The issue began immediately following that update and has persisted despite infotainment system resets and checking for further software updates. I am aware that GM has internally acknowledged this issue via Preliminary Information bulletin PIC6644 (issued February 2026), which attributes the problem to a “software anomaly” and confirms engineering is investigating. However, no fix or timeline has been provided to customers. A GPS system that does not reflect the vehicle’s actual location is a safety concern — particularly when relying on navigation for routing, hazard awareness, or emergency response. I am filing this complaint to ensure this issue is part of the public record and to urge NHTSA to monitor the scope of this defect across 2024 Lyriq vehicles

While slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 1 mph (?) the vehicle unexpectedly accelerated. The vehicle mounted the curb, and struck a a parked car and hit a brick retaining wall, causing damage to both. This all happened within a few seconds and there were no warning lights or messages before or during the accident. I was not injured and there were no other people present. The police were called and inspected the damages. The insurance company was contacted due to damages. No one was in the parking lot at the time. The manufacturer was notified and will inspect the car for cause/failure.

While slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 1 mph (?) the vehicle unexpectedly accelerated. The vehicle mounted the curb, and struck a a parked car and hit a brick retaining wall, causing damage to both. This all happened within a few seconds and there were no warning lights or messages before or during the accident. I was not injured and there were no other people present. The police were called and inspected the damages. The insurance company was contacted due to damages. No one was in the parking lot at the time. The manufacturer was notified and will inspect the car for cause/failure.

While slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 1 mph (?) the vehicle unexpectedly accelerated. The vehicle mounted the curb, and struck a a parked car and hit a brick retaining wall, causing damage to both. This all happened within a few seconds and there were no warning lights or messages before or during the accident. I was not injured and there were no other people present. The police were called and inspected the damages. The insurance company was contacted due to damages. No one was in the parking lot at the time. The manufacturer was notified and will inspect the car for cause/failure.

I was traveling on the freeway at approximately 70 mph, at about 5:15 pm. I was not using cruise control. There was no one in front of me for maybe a quarter mile. Suddenly and without warning, the car slammed on the brakes. A yellow alert came up on the dash telling me the Forward Collision system had been activated. The red warning lights at the front of the dashboard (the heads-up display) also flashed. The road was dry, I was on an entirely straight section of road, and there were no shadows. Besides scaring me half to death, if someone had been immediately behind me, they could easily have slammed into me. The car has not been inspected by the dealer, etc. I believe OnStar should have a record of it happening, but I have not contacted them.

I was traveling on the freeway at approximately 70 mph, at about 5:15 pm. I was not using cruise control. There was no one in front of me for maybe a quarter mile. Suddenly and without warning, the car slammed on the brakes. A yellow alert came up on the dash telling me the Forward Collision system had been activated. The red warning lights at the front of the dashboard (the heads-up display) also flashed. The road was dry, I was on an entirely straight section of road, and there were no shadows. Besides scaring me half to death, if someone had been immediately behind me, they could easily have slammed into me. The car has not been inspected by the dealer, etc. I believe OnStar should have a record of it happening, but I have not contacted them.

I was traveling on the freeway at approximately 70 mph, at about 5:15 pm. I was not using cruise control. There was no one in front of me for maybe a quarter mile. Suddenly and without warning, the car slammed on the brakes. A yellow alert came up on the dash telling me the Forward Collision system had been activated. The red warning lights at the front of the dashboard (the heads-up display) also flashed. The road was dry, I was on an entirely straight section of road, and there were no shadows. Besides scaring me half to death, if someone had been immediately behind me, they could easily have slammed into me. The car has not been inspected by the dealer, etc. I believe OnStar should have a record of it happening, but I have not contacted them.

After a manufacturer-initiated software/system update was performed on my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq approximately two weeks ago, the vehicle stopped charging and stopped generating heat. I brought the vehicle to Cadillac Norwood MA for diagnosis. The dealership informed me that a replacement part is needed, but the part does not currently exist and must be manufactured by General Motors. They could not provide any timeline for when the part would be available or when the vehicle would be repaired. The vehicle is being held at the dealership indefinitely. I have opened a case with Cadillac's EV Concierge and filed a formal complaint with them, but have not received a resolution or timeline. This vehicle is used professionally as a chauffeur vehicle and the inability to charge or heat the vehicle renders it completely inoperable and unsafe, particularly in Massachusetts winter conditions. A vehicle losing all charging capability and cabin heating after a software update represents a serious safety concern for EV owners

On November 26, 2025, while traveling in stop-and-go freeway traffic, I experienced a severe braking failure that led to a rear-end collision. Despite applying maximum force to the brake pedal, the vehicle did not decelerate as expected. Objective technical evidence from the Bosch CDR report (Case #1105768) confirms a critical system failure: Extreme Driver Input: At -0.5 seconds before impact, Driver Applied Brake Pedal Pressure reached 10,935 kPa, representing a near-maximum emergency braking effort. Inadequate Response: Despite this peak pressure, the Vehicle Indicated Speed decreased only from 24 MPH to 22 MPH in the final 0.5-second interval. Data Discrepancy: The vehicle decelerated by 12 MPH (from 36 to 24 MPH) between -1.0s and -0.5s under lower pressure (7,695 kPa). However, when brake pressure was increased to its peak at -0.5s, deceleration effectively stalled. Electronic Anomaly: The Traction Control System (TCS) was reported as "Active" throughout the braking event, indicating potential improper electronic intervention. This vehicle has a history of significant electrical failures, including a total power loss on 10/15/2024 that required a high-voltage battery replacement. The failure of the braking system to respond to maximum driver input poses a catastrophic safety risk. I am requesting an investigation into the 2024 Cadillac LYRIQ's brake-by-wire and electronic stability control integration.

On November 26, 2025, while traveling in stop-and-go freeway traffic, I experienced a severe braking failure that led to a rear-end collision. Despite applying maximum force to the brake pedal, the vehicle did not decelerate as expected. Objective technical evidence from the Bosch CDR report (Case #1105768) confirms a critical system failure: Extreme Driver Input: At -0.5 seconds before impact, Driver Applied Brake Pedal Pressure reached 10,935 kPa, representing a near-maximum emergency braking effort. Inadequate Response: Despite this peak pressure, the Vehicle Indicated Speed decreased only from 24 MPH to 22 MPH in the final 0.5-second interval. Data Discrepancy: The vehicle decelerated by 12 MPH (from 36 to 24 MPH) between -1.0s and -0.5s under lower pressure (7,695 kPa). However, when brake pressure was increased to its peak at -0.5s, deceleration effectively stalled. Electronic Anomaly: The Traction Control System (TCS) was reported as "Active" throughout the braking event, indicating potential improper electronic intervention. This vehicle has a history of significant electrical failures, including a total power loss on 10/15/2024 that required a high-voltage battery replacement. The failure of the braking system to respond to maximum driver input poses a catastrophic safety risk. I am requesting an investigation into the 2024 Cadillac LYRIQ's brake-by-wire and electronic stability control integration.

On November 26, 2025, while traveling in stop-and-go freeway traffic, I experienced a severe braking failure that led to a rear-end collision. Despite applying maximum force to the brake pedal, the vehicle did not decelerate as expected. Objective technical evidence from the Bosch CDR report (Case #1105768) confirms a critical system failure: Extreme Driver Input: At -0.5 seconds before impact, Driver Applied Brake Pedal Pressure reached 10,935 kPa, representing a near-maximum emergency braking effort. Inadequate Response: Despite this peak pressure, the Vehicle Indicated Speed decreased only from 24 MPH to 22 MPH in the final 0.5-second interval. Data Discrepancy: The vehicle decelerated by 12 MPH (from 36 to 24 MPH) between -1.0s and -0.5s under lower pressure (7,695 kPa). However, when brake pressure was increased to its peak at -0.5s, deceleration effectively stalled. Electronic Anomaly: The Traction Control System (TCS) was reported as "Active" throughout the braking event, indicating potential improper electronic intervention. This vehicle has a history of significant electrical failures, including a total power loss on 10/15/2024 that required a high-voltage battery replacement. The failure of the braking system to respond to maximum driver input poses a catastrophic safety risk. I am requesting an investigation into the 2024 Cadillac LYRIQ's brake-by-wire and electronic stability control integration.

My 2024 Cadillac EV is only 9900 miles. I was driving the car on Sunday Jan 11, 2026 with my family when we noticed smoke filled inside the cabin. My 3 children (a [XXX] , a [XXX] old, and a new-born who is [XXX] old) were in the car; they inhaled the smoke. We evacuated the car and called onstar for assistance - who towed the car. The smoke originated from the tailgate of the car. Alarmingly, just 3 days before this incident (Jan 8, 2026), I took the car to the local Cadillac dealership to complain about water intrusion in the left taillight that is in the liftgate. The service advisor created a repair order and sent me back saying it would take 10 days to arrive. Upon my specific inquiry, the advisor stated the car was safe to drive and assured me that I would not get a ticket. Since the event (5 days later) it was confirmed by the service advisor that the same water intrusion event lead to the electrical fire that burned a connector, a module, and multiple wiring components causing the fire. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

My 2024 Cadillac EV is only 9900 miles. I was driving the car on Sunday Jan 11, 2026 with my family when we noticed smoke filled inside the cabin. My 3 children (a [XXX] , a [XXX] old, and a new-born who is [XXX] old) were in the car; they inhaled the smoke. We evacuated the car and called onstar for assistance - who towed the car. The smoke originated from the tailgate of the car. Alarmingly, just 3 days before this incident (Jan 8, 2026), I took the car to the local Cadillac dealership to complain about water intrusion in the left taillight that is in the liftgate. The service advisor created a repair order and sent me back saying it would take 10 days to arrive. Upon my specific inquiry, the advisor stated the car was safe to drive and assured me that I would not get a ticket. Since the event (5 days later) it was confirmed by the service advisor that the same water intrusion event lead to the electrical fire that burned a connector, a module, and multiple wiring components causing the fire. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

I am submitting this follow-up to document new information and continuing concerns regarding my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq EV, which experienced sudden unintended acceleration during a parking maneuver. GM and its claims administrator (ESIS) have now completed their review and issued a denial letter on October 31 2025, stating “no defects were found.” However, the denial included no supporting technical findings, analysis, or data explaining how that conclusion was reached. Despite multiple written requests, GM has not provided the following key event-data modules: – Brake System Control Module (EBCM/iBooster) export (brake pressure, pedal position, brake override flags) – Propulsion/Drive Control Module data (torque request vs actual torque and accelerator input) – Front Camera Module metadata (timestamps and event record IDs) Additionally, several data discrepancies remain unresolved — including mismatched timestamps between the ASCM and FCM reports and camera images that do not correspond to the actual crash scene. On October 29 2025, GM publicly announced Customer Satisfaction Program N252521980, covering certain 2023–24 Cadillac Lyriq and 2024 Chevy Blazer EV vehicles for a Brake System Control Module software update due to possible brake-control performance issues. Because my incident involved loss of braking response, this recall appears directly relevant. I have requested confirmation whether my vehicle is affected and whether this module was analyzed in GM’s investigation, but have not received a reply. I am requesting that NHTSA review GM’s handling of this case to determine whether the engineering review was complete and whether the vehicle’s BSCM or related systems could be implicated in unintended acceleration or brake override failures. GM Case #1092995 – Submitted to ESIS/GM Product Investigations Group. Thank you for your attention and for documenting this matter in the defect database.

I am submitting this follow-up to document new information and continuing concerns regarding my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq EV, which experienced sudden unintended acceleration during a parking maneuver. GM and its claims administrator (ESIS) have now completed their review and issued a denial letter on October 31 2025, stating “no defects were found.” However, the denial included no supporting technical findings, analysis, or data explaining how that conclusion was reached. Despite multiple written requests, GM has not provided the following key event-data modules: – Brake System Control Module (EBCM/iBooster) export (brake pressure, pedal position, brake override flags) – Propulsion/Drive Control Module data (torque request vs actual torque and accelerator input) – Front Camera Module metadata (timestamps and event record IDs) Additionally, several data discrepancies remain unresolved — including mismatched timestamps between the ASCM and FCM reports and camera images that do not correspond to the actual crash scene. On October 29 2025, GM publicly announced Customer Satisfaction Program N252521980, covering certain 2023–24 Cadillac Lyriq and 2024 Chevy Blazer EV vehicles for a Brake System Control Module software update due to possible brake-control performance issues. Because my incident involved loss of braking response, this recall appears directly relevant. I have requested confirmation whether my vehicle is affected and whether this module was analyzed in GM’s investigation, but have not received a reply. I am requesting that NHTSA review GM’s handling of this case to determine whether the engineering review was complete and whether the vehicle’s BSCM or related systems could be implicated in unintended acceleration or brake override failures. GM Case #1092995 – Submitted to ESIS/GM Product Investigations Group. Thank you for your attention and for documenting this matter in the defect database.

I am submitting this follow-up to document new information and continuing concerns regarding my 2024 Cadillac Lyriq EV, which experienced sudden unintended acceleration during a parking maneuver. GM and its claims administrator (ESIS) have now completed their review and issued a denial letter on October 31 2025, stating “no defects were found.” However, the denial included no supporting technical findings, analysis, or data explaining how that conclusion was reached. Despite multiple written requests, GM has not provided the following key event-data modules: – Brake System Control Module (EBCM/iBooster) export (brake pressure, pedal position, brake override flags) – Propulsion/Drive Control Module data (torque request vs actual torque and accelerator input) – Front Camera Module metadata (timestamps and event record IDs) Additionally, several data discrepancies remain unresolved — including mismatched timestamps between the ASCM and FCM reports and camera images that do not correspond to the actual crash scene. On October 29 2025, GM publicly announced Customer Satisfaction Program N252521980, covering certain 2023–24 Cadillac Lyriq and 2024 Chevy Blazer EV vehicles for a Brake System Control Module software update due to possible brake-control performance issues. Because my incident involved loss of braking response, this recall appears directly relevant. I have requested confirmation whether my vehicle is affected and whether this module was analyzed in GM’s investigation, but have not received a reply. I am requesting that NHTSA review GM’s handling of this case to determine whether the engineering review was complete and whether the vehicle’s BSCM or related systems could be implicated in unintended acceleration or brake override failures. GM Case #1092995 – Submitted to ESIS/GM Product Investigations Group. Thank you for your attention and for documenting this matter in the defect database.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER RECALL SINCE JUNE 2025. WE HAVE HAD THE DEALER DO THE RECALL, HAD OVER THE AIR UPDATES AND IT STILL CAUSES ALL THE ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM SCREEN TO GO BLACK AND DISABLES THEM. DEALER MSYATES ALL RECALLS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER RECALL SINCE JUNE 2025. WE HAVE HAD THE DEALER DO THE RECALL, HAD OVER THE AIR UPDATES AND IT STILL CAUSES ALL THE ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM SCREEN TO GO BLACK AND DISABLES THEM. DEALER MSYATES ALL RECALLS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER RECALL SINCE JUNE 2025. WE HAVE HAD THE DEALER DO THE RECALL, HAD OVER THE AIR UPDATES AND IT STILL CAUSES ALL THE ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM SCREEN TO GO BLACK AND DISABLES THEM. DEALER MSYATES ALL RECALLS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

On September 9, 2025, while slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 7 mph, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration. There were no warnings, alerts, or Safety Alert Seat vibrations prior to the surge. The vehicle rapidly accelerated forward, struck a parked car, went over a curb, hit a tree, and finally came to rest after colliding with the side of a building. GM has since taken possession of the vehicle for forensic analysis.

On September 9, 2025, while slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 7 mph, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration. There were no warnings, alerts, or Safety Alert Seat vibrations prior to the surge. The vehicle rapidly accelerated forward, struck a parked car, went over a curb, hit a tree, and finally came to rest after colliding with the side of a building. GM has since taken possession of the vehicle for forensic analysis.

On September 9, 2025, while slowly turning into a parking space at approximately 7 mph, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration. There were no warnings, alerts, or Safety Alert Seat vibrations prior to the surge. The vehicle rapidly accelerated forward, struck a parked car, went over a curb, hit a tree, and finally came to rest after colliding with the side of a building. GM has since taken possession of the vehicle for forensic analysis.

on Sept 23, 2025, I was rear ended by a driver going between 50-60 mph. I am concerned that some safety features were potentially not working at the time of the incident. I will detail the information below: Background / Original Service Issue: When I initially brought my vehicle to Titus-Will Chevrolet GMC Cadillac for service, I observed that multiple critical safety systems were nonfunctional, including, but not limited to: Forward collision alert sensor All cameras (rear, front, top down) Blind zone steering assist Lane departure warning and other associated warning sensors The dealership kept my car for two days and then informed me that a "module" needed to be ordered for repair, but stated that the vehicle was considered “drivable” and would call me when the part came in. I noticed some of the safety features had resumed working, however some were still non-functional. At no point was I told there were any potential safety risks, nor which safety systems were still not functional. I was not given any paperwork, as they were holding it until the module came in. Crash Event: On 09/23/2025 at 5:37 pm, I was involved in a crash. At the time of impact: The forward collision alert sensor did not function I received no warning of the impending collision No airbags deployed. This may have been directly related to the previously identified and unrepaired safety system issues.

on Sept 23, 2025, I was rear ended by a driver going between 50-60 mph. I am concerned that some safety features were potentially not working at the time of the incident. I will detail the information below: Background / Original Service Issue: When I initially brought my vehicle to Titus-Will Chevrolet GMC Cadillac for service, I observed that multiple critical safety systems were nonfunctional, including, but not limited to: Forward collision alert sensor All cameras (rear, front, top down) Blind zone steering assist Lane departure warning and other associated warning sensors The dealership kept my car for two days and then informed me that a "module" needed to be ordered for repair, but stated that the vehicle was considered “drivable” and would call me when the part came in. I noticed some of the safety features had resumed working, however some were still non-functional. At no point was I told there were any potential safety risks, nor which safety systems were still not functional. I was not given any paperwork, as they were holding it until the module came in. Crash Event: On 09/23/2025 at 5:37 pm, I was involved in a crash. At the time of impact: The forward collision alert sensor did not function I received no warning of the impending collision No airbags deployed. This may have been directly related to the previously identified and unrepaired safety system issues.

At least 10 times over the past three months the vehicle’s feature of one pedal driving disengages without a reason or code. When the this happens the vehicle accelerates rapidly. This has happened on local streets and on the highway and often results in a near miss collision. I am concerned this will result in a serious injury or death.

At least 10 times over the past three months the vehicle’s feature of one pedal driving disengages without a reason or code. When the this happens the vehicle accelerates rapidly. This has happened on local streets and on the highway and often results in a near miss collision. I am concerned this will result in a serious injury or death.

At least 10 times over the past three months the vehicle’s feature of one pedal driving disengages without a reason or code. When the this happens the vehicle accelerates rapidly. This has happened on local streets and on the highway and often results in a near miss collision. I am concerned this will result in a serious injury or death.

I was driving on Saturday September 3 at 5 pm over the Chain Bridge entering Washington DC. Traffic was heavy and the auto brake went on when I was about 15 feet from the car in front of me. I was using one-pedal driving and when I pushed on the gas slowly we started slowly moving forward. I was traveling around 3 or 4 miles an hour and the car would not slow down when I took my foot over the pedal. One pedal driving apparently stopped working. I then applied the brakes gently and the brakes did not work. I then pushed the brakes hard and still no brakes worked. I tried pumping the brakes and nothing worked. The car gently ran into the car in front of me causing no damage to the car in front and he kept on his way. My front grill was cracked and bumper was slightly damaged. The signal on the dashboard said parking brake engaged which it was not. While the auto safety brake engaged minutes earlier when it was not needed it did not work when the car was drifting uncontrollably into the car in front of me.

While driving in one-pedal driving mode at the high setting, an error message appeared and one-pedal driving suddenly shut off and switched to a more standard drive mode where engine braking is disengaged. This happened while drive was engaged and stopped at a red light. The car briefly lurched forward and the car engaged an emergency brake to prevent the car from rolling into the vehicle in front of me. This incident was unpredictable and resulted in an unexpected change to the drive mode I had selected which could have lead to a collision.

While driving in one-pedal driving mode at the high setting, an error message appeared and one-pedal driving suddenly shut off and switched to a more standard drive mode where engine braking is disengaged. This happened while drive was engaged and stopped at a red light. The car briefly lurched forward and the car engaged an emergency brake to prevent the car from rolling into the vehicle in front of me. This incident was unpredictable and resulted in an unexpected change to the drive mode I had selected which could have lead to a collision.

While driving in one-pedal driving mode at the high setting, an error message appeared and one-pedal driving suddenly shut off and switched to a more standard drive mode where engine braking is disengaged. This happened while drive was engaged and stopped at a red light. The car briefly lurched forward and the car engaged an emergency brake to prevent the car from rolling into the vehicle in front of me. This incident was unpredictable and resulted in an unexpected change to the drive mode I had selected which could have lead to a collision.

The contact owns a 2023 Cadillac Lyriq. The contact stated that while reversing and proceeding to make a U-turn, he crashed into a steel guardrail. The automatic braking system did not engage. There was no audible or visual alert or warning provided by the system. There was no injury, police report, airbag deployment, or fire. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer. After twelve days, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was contacted, who confirmed the vehicle had functioned as designed. The failure mileage was 8,600.

The contact owns a 2023 Cadillac Lyriq. The contact stated that while reversing and proceeding to make a U-turn, he crashed into a steel guardrail. The automatic braking system did not engage. There was no audible or visual alert or warning provided by the system. There was no injury, police report, airbag deployment, or fire. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer. After twelve days, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was contacted, who confirmed the vehicle had functioned as designed. The failure mileage was 8,600.

1-Pedal Drive Turns Itself Off / Disengages Itself while Driving.

Recall 252500680 GM claims closed and downloaded OTA. NO such download ever occured per my vehicle history as displayed. How many thousands of vehicles are being improperly closed without updating due to GM incompetance.

I was driving at a steady 65mph on a highway when the car suddenly surged and the message "1 pedal driving deactivated. Use brakes to stop." I stopped the car with the brakes and restarted it and reactivated 1 pedal driving. Note I was NOT using regenerative braking at the time. The car surged a few miles an hour, and in a heavy traffic scenario could have easily caused a crash.

I was driving at a steady 65mph on a highway when the car suddenly surged and the message "1 pedal driving deactivated. Use brakes to stop." I stopped the car with the brakes and restarted it and reactivated 1 pedal driving. Note I was NOT using regenerative braking at the time. The car surged a few miles an hour, and in a heavy traffic scenario could have easily caused a crash.

I was driving at a steady 65mph on a highway when the car suddenly surged and the message "1 pedal driving deactivated. Use brakes to stop." I stopped the car with the brakes and restarted it and reactivated 1 pedal driving. Note I was NOT using regenerative braking at the time. The car surged a few miles an hour, and in a heavy traffic scenario could have easily caused a crash.

Since a recent software update, vehicle will unexpectedly give multiple error codes, and disengage “one-pedal driving” mode. This happened recently when coming to a stop at a traffic light behind another vehicle. When coming to a gradual one-pedal stop, the one pedal driving mode unexpectedly disengaged, causing me to almost hit the vehicle in front of me. This error has occurred 5-6 times in the past 3 months.

Since a recent software update, vehicle will unexpectedly give multiple error codes, and disengage “one-pedal driving” mode. This happened recently when coming to a stop at a traffic light behind another vehicle. When coming to a gradual one-pedal stop, the one pedal driving mode unexpectedly disengaged, causing me to almost hit the vehicle in front of me. This error has occurred 5-6 times in the past 3 months.

One pedal driving switched to unavailable while driving - 24 Lyriq AWD I have seen this couple of times while driving now. I keep the one-pedal driving setting on High. I suddenly get an error on Side detection unavailable and One pedal driving turned off - use manual braking. I also feel a slight surge in acceleration while this happens, but I have been able to slow down and re-engage one pedal and it seems to work after that. I am concerned that I may bump into someone in front of me if this happens again, since it has happened a couple of times now!

Hi, this vehicle is owned by Surreal Development LLC. A company whom reverse engineers vehicle. GM has an issue in their Cadillac Lyriq's which causes a complete failure of the vehicle's communication systems without warning while driving. This issue appears to affect all Global B vehicles but it is most severe in vehicles with one pedal driving (Sierra EV, Lyriq, Blazer EV, Optiq, Silverado EV, Equinox EV, etc...) The error is likely within the vehicle's Serial Data Gateway Control Module but it is unclear. The vehicle recovers from the communication quickly (within seconds) but it causes long term adverse affects for that driving period. 1. The vehicle will light up with warnings (Service Traction Control, disengage super cruise, disengage ACC, etc...) 2. The driver's pedal will go into safety mode. 3. A "Service High Voltage" system warning may or may not appear. The safety concern is mostly in #2. When this happens it is very jarring to the driver as it drastically changes how the vehicle responds. While the vehicle may state one pedal driving is disabled many times it still indicates it is on within the controls (likely due to an error in the compounded communication fault). This can lead to the driver rear ending the vehicle in front of them or rolling over. The fault does not correct itself until the vehicle resets (powers off/on). The issue is common and affects many owners of the Cadillac Lyriq. The only diagnostic data we see are communication faults across many modules.

The contact owns a 2024 Cadillac Lyriq. The contact stated that upon engaging the drive mode of the vehicle, the vehicle unintendedly switched back to parking mode. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where an unknown repair was performed, and the vehicle was repaired. Additionally, the dealer informed the contact that the VIN was included in NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V356000 (Equipment, Electrical System). The contact stated after the dealer performed the recall repair, the vehicle failed to restart. The dealer informed the contact that the manufacturer needed to provide additional remedy to correct the failure. The dealer referred the contact to the manufacturer for assistance. The manufacturer was contacted and referred the contact to the dealer for assistance. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 29,488. Parts distribution disconnect.