VinFast Class Action Lawsuits: Charging Speed, Securities Fraud, NC

VinFast, the Vietnamese electric vehicle maker, is defending itself in three separate U.S. lawsuits: a consumer class action over the charging speed of its VF 8 Plus SUV, a securities fraud class action tied to its 2023 Nasdaq debut, and a case brought by the state of North Carolina to reclaim a nearly 2,000-acre site where the company had promised to build a $4 billion factory. Taken together, the VinFast class action lawsuits and the North Carolina case put the company under legal pressure on the consumer, investor, and government sides at once.

The Charging Speed Class Action

Two California residents, Gil Abrahem Swigi and Joseph Mizrahi, filed a proposed class action against VinFast Auto, LLC in June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is Swigi et al. v. VinFast Auto, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-05560. Both plaintiffs leased 2024 VinFast VF 8 Plus AWD vehicles in August 2024.¹

The complaint alleges VinFast marketed the VF 8 Plus as capable of Level 2 home charging at the industry-standard 32 amps, delivering 6.6 kilowatts or more. According to the plaintiffs, a software defect causes the charging system to shut down entirely at 32 amps, and owners must manually cut the amperage to 19 or below to keep the car charging at all. That reduces charging power by roughly 40 percent. At the lower rate, charging from 60 percent to 90 percent takes about seven hours, and a full charge from typical daily-use levels can exceed 20 hours.²

The plaintiffs say VinFast acknowledged the issue was software-based and within its control but declined to push an effective update. The only fix the company offered, they allege, was for owners to buy new charging equipment at their own expense.³

Claims and Proposed Class

The complaint brings eight causes of action under federal and California law: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; false advertising under Business and Professions Code § 17500; breach of contract; and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (§ 17200).²

The proposed nationwide class covers anyone in the United States who, within four years before the filing, bought or leased a VF 8 Plus that failed to charge at the advertised rate. A California subclass covers the same group inside the state. VinFast, its officers and affiliates, government entities, and the presiding judge’s household are excluded.²

Sent to Arbitration

The class action has not reached certification or settlement. A judge paused it and ordered the individual claims into arbitration under the plaintiffs’ signed arbitration agreements, with a status report on the arbitration set for February 20, 2026.⁴ Jason M. Ingber and Serach B. Shafa of the Ingber Law Group represent the plaintiffs.³

The Securities Fraud Class Action

VinFast went public on August 15, 2023, through a merger with Black Spade Acquisition Co., a special-purpose acquisition company. Shares opened at $22, well above the $10 SPAC deal price, and closed the first day at $37.06, briefly valuing the company at roughly $85 billion.⁵ The stock then collapsed.

Investor Jeremie Comeau filed suit in April 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the case was consolidated under the caption Comeau v. VinFast Auto Ltd., No. 24-CV-2750. The class period runs from August 15, 2023, through January 17, 2024. Defendants include VinFast, founder and chairman Pham Nhat Vuong, and several executives and directors.⁶

The complaint alleges the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts in the Black Spade merger offering documents: that VinFast lacked the capital to execute its growth strategy, would not meet its 2023 delivery targets, and had overstated the strength of its business model and post-merger financial prospects.⁷

In November 2024, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy appointed three members of the Nannicini family as lead plaintiffs, citing the largest aggregate financial interest at $394,134 in alleged losses. The court approved Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and denied a competing motion from an investor claiming $271,246 in losses.⁶

North Carolina’s Suit Over the Abandoned Factory

The largest-dollar dispute comes from North Carolina itself. In 2022, VinFast agreed to build a $4 billion EV and battery manufacturing plant on a 1,765-acre site in Chatham County, near Moncure, and to create 7,500 jobs. State and local governments assembled an incentive package totaling just over $1.25 billion, including $450 million in state appropriations for site preparation and infrastructure, a $400 million Chatham County incentive, a state Job Development Investment Grant of up to $316.2 million, $50 million from the Golden LEAF Foundation, and $38 million from the NC Community College System.⁸ In exchange, VinFast agreed to invest at least $3.21 billion at the site by December 31, 2026, and to meet interim job-creation milestones.⁹

What the State Says Happened

The site was cleared and graded in 2023 with state-reimbursed funds. According to the state, VinFast never obtained a building permit, never began vertical construction by the January 2024 deadline, and abandoned work on the property by December 2024. The attorney general’s office says the site sat dormant for over a year, VinFast’s air quality permit lapsed for nonpayment, and the company maintained a non-working email address for communication.¹⁰¹¹

VinFast told investors and regulators the facility would open in 2028, and cut its projected hiring from 7,500 jobs to about 1,400.¹² The state Department of Justice sent a default notice in January 2026.¹³

The Filing and What the State Wants

On May 21, 2026, Attorney General Jeff Jackson filed suit in Wake County Superior Court on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Commerce. The state is exercising a buyback option built into the 2022 agreements to protect taxpayer money if VinFast defaulted. It seeks to reacquire the 1,765-acre site and recover roughly $80.1 million in state funds VinFast used on site preparation.¹⁰

“VinFast agreed to build a factory and create jobs for North Carolinians. It didn’t do either,” Jackson said. Governor Josh Stein said the goal was to return the megasite to the market for new employers.¹⁴

VinFast denies defaulting. The company says it met its construction deadlines by installing footers, wind columns, and vertical walls for water basins, and that new contractor agreements are in place. It submitted a plan in March 2026 to restart construction by year’s end. VinFast had previously asked for a timeline extension after the repeal of federal EV tax credits, and the state denied that request.¹⁴¹⁰

The state’s position is that VinFast’s projected 2028 opening falls well outside the maximum 18-month cure period in the agreement, so the breach cannot be cured.¹¹ As of December 31, 2025, VinFast reported spending $301.2 million on the project. None of the JDIG grant money, worth up to $316.1 million, has been paid, because those payments were tied to hiring targets VinFast never met.¹⁴

Related Pressures: A Recall and a Shrinking U.S. Footprint

The lawsuits are running alongside federal safety scrutiny and a sharp U.S. sales decline that shape the practical picture for anyone with a claim.

In September 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a preliminary evaluation into the Lane Keeping Assist system on 2023–2025 VF 8 models after reports of improper steering inputs on sweeping curves. One consumer complaint referenced a fatal crash involving four occupants, but NHTSA found no evidence linking the Lane Keeping Assist feature to that crash and closed the investigation. VinFast issued a voluntary recall covering 6,314 VF 8 units from the 2023–2025 model years, offering a free software and calibration update, with the rollout scheduled to begin October 31, 2025.¹⁵¹⁶

VinFast’s U.S. presence is contracting. Through October 2025, the company registered just 1,413 vehicles in the United States, a 57 percent drop from the prior year. Its retail footprint is fewer than two dozen stores, with only 17 showing active inventory, and multiple franchised dealers have exited or paused sales. Leith VinFast in Cary, North Carolina, closed its sales operations at the end of 2025.¹⁷¹⁸

On a November 2025 earnings call, VinFast Chairwoman Thuy Thu Le said: “Until we see some growth and stability in the U.S. market, we don’t intend to open more dealerships.” The company cited a saturated EV marketplace, the loss of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, and rising import tariffs.¹⁷

1
ClassAction.org. VinFast Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Automaker Overstated Electric Vehicle Charging Speeds
2
ClassAction.org. Swigi et al. v. VinFast Auto, LLC — Complaint
3
Top Class Actions. VinFast Class Action Claims EVs Charge at Significantly Slow Rates
4
CarComplaints. VinFast VF 8 Charging Speed Class Action Lawsuit
5
Reuters. EV Maker VinFast’s Shares Rise in Premarket Trade Before Nasdaq Debut
6
GovInfo. Comeau v. VinFast Auto Ltd. — Lead Plaintiff Order
7
Nasdaq. Shareholder Deadline: VinFast (VFS) Investors Are Reminded of Deadline in Securities
8
The News & Observer. VinFast Incentive Package Details
9
SEC EDGAR. VinFast JDIG Community Economic Development Agreement
10
The News & Observer. NC Sues VinFast Over Chatham County Site
11
WUNC. NC Sues VinFast in Effort to Regain Control of Chatham County Megasite
12
Axios. North Carolina Sues VinFast to Take Back Control of Chatham County Land
13
NC Department of Justice. North Carolina Sues VinFast to Acquire Shovel-Ready Manufacturing Site
14
WRAL. NC Jeff Jackson VinFast Lawsuit Chatham County
15
CarComplaints. VinFast VF 8 Lane Keep Assist Recall Investigation
16
NHTSA. Recall No. 25V559 — VinFast VF 8 Safety Recall Report
17
Motor Illustrated. VinFast Reverses U.S. Expansion as Dealer Closures Increase and Sales Decline
18
Automotive News. VinFast Guarantees Service After Dealers Close, Sales Dwindle