They'll probably agree on a settlement where they don't admit any wrongdoing and give him a decent payout, but require him to take down the site and sign an NDA or something. So they don't necessarily need to replace all of them after that

If all he wants is a refund, that should do it. But if he's more interested in warning the world, hopefully he sticks to his guns and makes them give a straight up refund

> A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

- Fight Club

I'm guessing that's every car.

Ah you might be right. But:

1. If they really have so many faulty cars on the road that's a serious hazard and any accidents where people die may end up destroying Volvo entirely because of negligence.

2. An economically reasonable answer might be refund the guy making the complaint and ofter all other owners $10k credit towards your next Volvo purchase or free 3 years of maintenance and service. Something like this might be enough to stem the bleeding while protecting the brand.