Toyota has agreed to pay $750 million to settle a class-action lawsuit involving approximately 260,000 vehicles affected by a diesel particulate filter (DPF) defect. The settlement concerns Toyota Hilux, Prado, and Fortuner models equipped with four-cylinder diesel engines manufactured between 2015 and 2018.

The legal action was initiated by firms representing owners of these vehicles, who claimed the DPF system was defective and failed to operate properly under normal driving conditions specific to the Australian market. The DPF’s role is to capture diesel soot from the exhaust and burn it off at high temperatures to reduce emissions. However, owners reported that blockages in the exhaust system caused by the filter resulted in excessive white smoke and unpleasant-smelling emissions.

One affected owner, Queensland motorist Ken Williams, recounted in 2022 that his 2016 Toyota Prado emitted “horrendous” smoke within a year of purchase. Williams described the experience as frightening, recalling the reaction of his children in the back seat who feared the vehicle was on fire.

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs successfully argued that vehicles with the faulty DPF experienced a decline in resale value due to the issue.

In response, Toyota Australia issued a statement acknowledging the settlement and expressing regret for the inconvenience caused to customers. The company emphasized that a free-of-charge remedy has been available since 2020 to address the problem. Toyota also reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining customer trust, which it said has been central to its operations in Australia for over 70 years.

“Toyota Australia has agreed to a settlement in the DPF class action case,” the company said. “We remain committed to assisting any impacted customers and to providing a free-of-charge remedy that has been available since 2020. We apologise for any inconvenience or discomfort experienced by our customers.”

The settlement requires approval from the court, with a final hearing scheduled for November 20. Until then, the agreement remains subject to judicial review.