The Super73 lawsuit in California is a proposed class action, Whitman et al. v. Super73, Inc., filed in Marin County Superior Court in December 2024, which alleges the company sold its Z, S, and R-series vehicles as legal Class 2 electric bicycles even though a mode in its smartphone app lets riders reach roughly 35 to 38 mph and tap about 2,000 watts of motor power. The suit seeks refunds for California purchasers, damages, and a court order barring Super73 from marketing the vehicles as e-bikes in the state.1Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. Super73 Sued Over Legality of Its E-Bikes in California2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
What the Lawsuit Says Super73 Did Wrong
California Vehicle Code Section 312.5 defines an electric bicycle as having fully operable pedals and a motor under 750 watts. A Class 2 e-bike is capped at 20 mph on throttle.3CalBike. California E-Bike Classifications Super73 markets its bikes as Class 2 with a 750-watt nominal motor and a 20 mph top speed.4Super73. SUPER73-R Adventure Series Core
The complaint says that is not what buyers actually got. Through the Super73 app, riders could switch into higher modes that pushed throttle speeds to 35 to 38 mph and unlocked roughly 2,000 watts, well past the state’s 20 mph and 750-watt ceilings.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73 A help page for the Super73-powered Indian eFTR Hooligan listed four settings available through the app: Class 1 pedal-assist at 20 mph, Class 2 throttle at 20 mph, Class 3 pedal-assist at 28 mph, and an “Off-Road Mode” delivering up to 2,000 watts with throttle speeds above 28 mph.5Indian Motorcycle. Super73 App Speed Class Modes
The plaintiffs argue that because any user, including a child, could reach the higher modes, the vehicles never legally qualified as e-bikes under California law no matter which mode a rider happened to be using at any given moment. The complaint calls them unregistered electric motorcycles.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
Named plaintiff John Hedlund of Fairfax says he bought a Z Adventure Series Blackout SE in July 2024 from a San Rafael dealer for about $3,463 as a fourteenth birthday gift for his daughter. Within weeks, Fairfax and San Rafael police told him the vehicle was not compliant with California regulations. Both the dealer and Super73 denied his refund request.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
Who Is Covered and What the Suit Seeks
The proposed class includes anyone who, while in California and within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Super73 Z-Series, S-Series, or R-Series vehicle.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73 The class has not been formally certified, so no claim process exists yet.
The amended complaint, filed February 10, 2025, asserts nine causes of action: California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act; breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Commercial Code; negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and declaratory relief.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
The remedies sought include full refunds, compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction prohibiting Super73 from marketing its vehicles as e-bikes in California, and a judicial declaration that the vehicles do not meet the state’s legal definition of an e-bike. The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.1Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. Super73 Sued Over Legality of Its E-Bikes in California
What Changed on January 1, 2025
New California regulations that took effect on January 1, 2025 specify that if an e-bike can be modified to exceed legal speed limits through a display or app, it no longer qualifies as a street-legal electric bicycle.6Electrek. The Days of Superfast Super73 E-Bikes Are Over, Sort Of Super73 updated its app so that anyone who downloaded and paired it after that date is locked into Class 2 mode at 20 mph.7Super73. SUPER73-S2 SE
If you already paired the app before the cutoff, the restriction was not pushed to your bike.8E-Bike Access. History of Super 73 The hardware itself remains physically capable of the higher speeds, and third-party apps reportedly exist that can bypass the company’s software restrictions entirely.6Electrek. The Days of Superfast Super73 E-Bikes Are Over, Sort Of
The Safety Record Cited in the Complaint
The complaint describes what it calls a public safety crisis in Marin County. It cites two Marin County trauma surgeons who found that injury patterns from Super73 crashes more closely resemble motorcycle collisions than bicycle accidents, with riders facing a significantly higher risk of hospital admission and death compared to those in ordinary bicycle crashes.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
Children aged 10 to 15 reportedly have the highest electric-vehicle accident rate of any age group in the county, more than 500 percent higher than other groups, and Super73 is identified in the complaint as the most popular electric vehicle brand among that group. Data from the Central Marin Police Authority indicates Super73 vehicles are involved in at least half of all electric vehicle collisions in the area, typically with riders under 16.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
Police chiefs in Central Marin, Mill Valley, Fairfax, and Ross have publicly stated that Super73 vehicles are not legal e-bikes under California law.9Anapol Weiss. Super73s Are Not Legal E-Bikes Under California Law According to Local Authorities Schools, the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, and the county’s Safe Routes to School program have banned the vehicles from campuses and safety courses.2Bike Danville. Amended Class Action Complaint, Whitman v. Super73
A Separate Brake Recall, Not Part of the Lawsuit
If you own a 2024 Z Miami SE or Z Adventure Core, there is a different issue to be aware of that is not connected to the class action. On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of roughly 1,400 of those model-year 2024 bikes because the retaining pin in the disc brake calipers could loosen and dislodge, risking brake failure. Super73 had received 21 reports of loose pins or brake failure and one minor injury at the time of the recall.10U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Super73 Recalls Z Miami SE and Z Adventure Core Electric Bicycles Due to Crash and Injury Hazards Owners were told to stop riding and contact the company for a free repair kit, with up to $50 offered toward professional installation.11Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. Super73 Recalls Some Models Because Disc Brake Retaining Pin Can Loosen
How California Law Is Tightening Around These Vehicles
Several new California laws reflect the same concerns the lawsuit raises. AB 875, signed into law in October 2025, gives police authority to impound vehicles with fewer than four wheels that do not meet the legal definition of an e-bike, have an electric motor capable of exceeding 20 mph, and are operated without registration or by an unlicensed person. Seized vehicles must be held for at least 48 hours.12LegiScan. AB 875 Text
AB 544, effective January 1, 2026, requires e-bikes to have a rear red reflector or light at all times and requires minors cited for helmet violations to complete an online safety course developed by the California Highway Patrol. SB 586 created a new classification for “off-highway electric motorcycles,” or eMotos, recognizing them as off-highway motor vehicles that require helmets and identification plates.13Fox 5 San Diego. California Public Safety Laws
SB 1167, introduced in February 2026 by Senator Catherine Blakespear, would explicitly classify the misrepresentation of high-powered electric vehicles as “e-bikes” as false advertising subject to prosecution, and would require sellers of vehicles exceeding e-bike limits to disclose that the product needs vehicle registration and a license.14Senator Blakespear. Sen. Blakespear Introduces Legislation to Improve E-Bike Marketplace The bill had passed the Senate Transportation Committee as of mid-2025 with support from CalBike and PeopleForBikes.15PeopleForBikes. California SB 1167 E-Bike Public Safety
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, Whitman et al. v. Super73, Inc., No. CV0004757, remains pending in Marin County Superior Court. The February 2025 amended complaint is the most recent substantive filing on record. No public reporting indicates the class has been certified, that Super73 has filed a dispositive motion, or that settlement discussions have been disclosed. Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Pat Huyett has said the case “seeks not just refunds for her and others similarly situated but also a court order prohibiting Super73 from selling its vehicles as e-bikes in California.”1Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. Super73 Sued Over Legality of Its E-Bikes in California
If you bought a Z, S, or R-series Super73 in California and want to be part of the eventual class, hold onto your purchase records, any communications with the dealer or Super73 about refund requests, and screenshots of app modes if you still have access to them. There is nothing to file yet.