NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
56 reportsClear category filter100,108 miles · Jan 30, 2026
Air BagsCrashInjury
The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was previously involved in a front-impact collision, and the air bags had failed to deploy. The contact sustained injuries and received medical assistance from a chiropractor. A police report was filed, and the vehicle was driven from the scene. Additi…
Read full complaint
The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was previously involved in a front-impact collision, and the air bags had failed to deploy. The contact sustained injuries and received medical assistance from a chiropractor. A police report was filed, and the vehicle was driven from the scene. Additionally, the contact stated that while driving 35-40 MPH approximately a year later, another vehicle making a left turn at an undisclosed speed crashed into the front driver's side of the vehicle, causing the left side of the contact's head and shoulders to hit the driver's side window, and the contact's chest to hit the steering wheel. The contact was knocked unconscious for a moment. Upon regaining consciousness, the contact noticed that the vehicle was on top of a hill. The contact's husband arrived at the scene and transported the contact to the hospital. A police report was filed. The contact sustained spinal injuries from the cervical spine to the lumbar spine. The contact sustained whiplash, body soreness, and swelling on the right side of the hairline and temple. The contact was in the process of undergoing an MRI. The contact was currently receiving assistance from the chiropractor and the pain management Doctor. The vehicle was towed to a tow yard, and was then towed to an auto collision repair shop, where it was deemed a total loss by both the shop and the insurance company. The dealer was contacted, and the contact was advised that she would receive a call back later. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 100,108.
NHTSA ODI #11714547
Mileage unknown · Jul 9, 2025
Air BagsSeat BeltsCrashInjury
I purchased this vehicle in November 2024 from a dealership. On July 8, 2025, I was involved in a crash where the airbag failed to deploy. After the accident, I learned there was an active recall from 2020 (NHTSA Recall No. 20V024) related to the airbag control system. The recall had not been repaired, and I was never informed o…
Read full complaint
I purchased this vehicle in November 2024 from a dealership. On July 8, 2025, I was involved in a crash where the airbag failed to deploy. After the accident, I learned there was an active recall from 2020 (NHTSA Recall No. 20V024) related to the airbag control system. The recall had not been repaired, and I was never informed of it when I bought the car. This defect may have worsened my injuries and left me completely unprotected during the crash.
NHTSA ODI #11672272
Mileage unknown · Feb 5, 2025
Air Bags
I had my airbag repaired back in 2022 due to a safety recall and that light has since then turned on again
NHTSA ODI #11641016
Mileage unknown · Jun 27, 2024
Air BagsSeat BeltsSeats
I placed my laptop bag, which weighs less than 15 lbs., on the passenger seat. Despite this, the seatbelt warning system continues to alert me about the seatbelt not being worn. The passenger seat should be able to detect when a human passenger is present. Unfortunately, I have to buckle the seatbelt to turn off the warning ligh…
Read full complaint
I placed my laptop bag, which weighs less than 15 lbs., on the passenger seat. Despite this, the seatbelt warning system continues to alert me about the seatbelt not being worn. The passenger seat should be able to detect when a human passenger is present. Unfortunately, I have to buckle the seatbelt to turn off the warning light and chime, even though there is no human passenger or item weighing more than 15 lbs.
NHTSA ODI #11597351
Mileage unknown · Oct 16, 2023
Air BagsCrashInjury
My daughter was hit from rear and the air bags didn't deploy the car was a total loss.
NHTSA ODI #11550236
96,500 miles · May 30, 2023
Air BagsCrash
The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving 30 MPH and approaching a stop, the vehicle struck a deer, causing the front windshield to crack. The air bags did not deploy. The vehicle was towed to the residence. There were no reported injuries. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was n…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving 30 MPH and approaching a stop, the vehicle struck a deer, causing the front windshield to crack. The air bags did not deploy. The vehicle was towed to the residence. There were no reported injuries. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 96,500.
NHTSA ODI #11524380
Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2022
Air Bags
The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving approximately 70 MPH the vehicle rolled 3 1/2 times. There were no warning lights on the instrument panel. No air bags were deployed at the accident The vehicle was towed to a local auto shop which diagnosed the failure of air bag sensors that needed repla…
Read full complaint
The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving approximately 70 MPH the vehicle rolled 3 1/2 times. There were no warning lights on the instrument panel. No air bags were deployed at the accident The vehicle was towed to a local auto shop which diagnosed the failure of air bag sensors that needed replacement. The vehicle was totally damaged. There were no injuries or medical treatments needed. There was a police report filed. The contact related the air bag failure to NHTSA Campaign 20V024000 (AIR BAGS). The approximate failure mileage was 79,900.
NHTSA ODI #11459830
Mileage unknown · Mar 14, 2022
Air BagsStructureWheelsCrashInjury
My daughter was driving my car on the interstate the airbags deployed and hit her in the face, filled the car up with smoke, she couldn’t see anything she hit the iron poles that are together by cables. My car is totaled. My back tire broke completely off of the car. These cars aren’t built safe. I owned my car and now I’m witho…
Read full complaint
My daughter was driving my car on the interstate the airbags deployed and hit her in the face, filled the car up with smoke, she couldn’t see anything she hit the iron poles that are together by cables. My car is totaled. My back tire broke completely off of the car. These cars aren’t built safe. I owned my car and now I’m without a car. Has anyone else ever had this happen? Air bags deploying for no reason?
NHTSA ODI #11456649
120,000 miles · Mar 10, 2022
Air BagsSeat BeltsCrashInjury
The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 20V024000 (Air Bags). The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, another vehicle T-boned the passenger's …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 20V024000 (Air Bags). The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, another vehicle T-boned the passenger's side of his vehicle. The seat belts did not restrain him, his wife, and their three minor children, upon impact. None of the air bags deployed upon impact. The contact suffered a left shoulder injury, and his wife suffered a hip injury. The three children did not sustain any injuries. The contact, his wife, and their children later received medical attention at the hospital. A police report was filed. The contact was able to drive away from the scene of the collision after roadside assistance replaced the passenger's side front tire. The dealer was made aware of the failure and requested the repair bills, the police report, and medical bills. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was opened. The manufacturer requested a demand letter but provided no further assistance. Prior to the collision, the contact's sister was also involved in another collision with the vehicle, and the same failure occurred. The failure mileage was approximately 120,000.
NHTSA ODI #11456109
Mileage unknown · Jan 6, 2022
Air BagsService BrakesCrash
I tried to stop as car in front me had stepped on brakes. I didn't stop and slid into back of another vehicle. Air bags did not deploy.
NHTSA ODI #11446545
NHTSA investigations
2EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA19001 · Electrical Overstress
Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.