Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2019-2020 LEAF vehicles equipped with a Level 3 quick charging port. The lithium-ion battery may overheat during Level 3 charging.
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2022 LEAF vehicles. Damage to the camera harness can cause distortion or loss of the rearview camera display image. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 111, "Rear Visibility."
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2023 LEAF vehicles. The vehicle may accelerate unintentionally if the driving mode is changed ("D" to "B"; e-Pedal "On"; or "ECO" mode) after disengaging the cruise control.
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2023 LEAF vehicles. The Owner's Manual instructions for defroster operation are incorrect, and may result in reduced defroster performance under specific conditions. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems."
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2019 Nissan Altima, Armada, Frontier, Kicks, Leaf, Maxima, Murano, NV, NV200, Pathfinder, Rogue, Rogue Sport, Sentra, Titan, Titan Diesel, Versa Note and Versa Sedan vehicles, as well as Infiniti Q50, Q60, QX30 and QX80 vehicles. Additionally included are 2019 Nissan GT-R and Taxi and Infiniti QX50, QX60, Q70, Q70L vehicles. The back-up camera and display settings can be adjusted such that the rear view image is no longer visible and the system will retain that setting the next time the vehicle is placed in reverse. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 111, "Rear Visibility."
The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System); however, the recall service failed to prevent a failure shortly after completion. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 30 MPH, an unknown battery warning light illuminated. The vehicle was returned to the dealer, where diagnosis confirmed an internal battery cell failure. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, and a case was filed via telephone. The failure mileage was approximately 100,000.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
Update to complaint XXX— XXX I am updating my complaint regarding Nissan LEAF recall R24B2 and the dealer’s handling of the recall remedy. On XXX I brought my 2019 Nissan LEAF to Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake to have recall R24B2 performed. The dealer told me that performing the recall remedy could cause the vehicle to enter reduced-power mode or become non-drivable, and that replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. The dealer therefore declined to perform the recall remedy at that time. A representative of Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake also advised me that I could ignore the safety warnings, not have the recall remedy performed, and drive the vehicle through the desert anyway. This was particularly concerning because the recall restricted the vehicle’s use of Level 3/CHAdeMO quick charging pending completion of the remedy, affecting my ability to safely use the vehicle for a planned interstate relocation. After I escalated the matter to Nissan Consumer Affairs, Nissan told me that Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake had said it declined to perform the remedy because of a time constraint. That account conflicts with what the dealer told me directly. I asked the dealer to perform the remedy before I mentioned my move or any timeline, and the dealer instead explained that it did not want to perform the remedy because it could leave the vehicle in reduced-power mode or non-drivable while replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. I then obtained an appointment at [XXX] Nissan of Murray on XXX, for the R24B2 recall remedy. I will provide the final repair order, diagnostic codes, and outcome when available. My safety concern is not solely that an open recall exists. An authorized dealer declined to perform the prescribed recall remedy because it said the procedure could immobilize the vehicle, while Nissan later relayed a materially different explanation for the dealer’s refusal. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
No injuries · No fire · No crash
My 2019 Nissan Leaf's battery stopped charging due to a manufacturer defect. Nissan North America confirmed this is covered under NHTSA Recall 24V-700 and agreed to repurchase the vehicle (case #1163589). However, Nissan's repurchase process has been severely delayed by issues connected to the recall remedy itself: Nissan requires a physical title to complete the repurchase, but their own financing arm (NMAC) failed to release a lien for six years after payoff--despite the law requiring them to--and then provided a defective release letter, stalling the process for over a month. Separately, Nissan's own repurchase letter promised a courtesy rental vehicle for up to 30 days during the process, which was never provided despite requesting. They are also refusing to lock in their repurchase price so every day of their delay is benefiting them while costing me. I am raising this because the recall remedy process itself — not just the underlying defect — has been mishandled, leaving an affected consumer without a resolution or a functioning vehicle for an extended period.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
The contact owned a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System). The local dealer was contacted and declined to perform the recall repair, stating that the recall repair would place the vehicle in LIMP Mode, and advised the contact to disregard any warning lights illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue and informed the contact to reach out to the dealer for assistance. The contact had not experienced a failure.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
I own a 2019 Nissan Leaf (recall R24B2/NHTSA 24V-700), 70,000 km, battery State of Health 97% per LeafSpy (OBD-based BMS health reading, not the dash gauge). I support the recall's intent and have stopped Level 3 fast charging entirely, using only home Level 1/2 charging. I'm raising a structural concern, relevant beyond my own vehicle: for cars that trip the SOC-fluctuation fault, the only remedy offered is full battery replacement or buyback — scrapping/replacing packs that are often barely degraded, at real environmental cost (mining, manufacturing, disposal) for a risk tied specifically to Level 3 charging, not to driving the car. I'd ask the agency to consider whether the remedy framework (repair/replace/refund-less-depreciation under 49 U.S.C. §30120, or Canada's equivalent) should allow a fourth, owner-consented option: permanent, verifiable disabling of DC fast-charging (physical connector removal, tamper-evident hardware, disclosed on the vehicle's title/history) in exchange for a smaller cash settlement — no battery replacement, no buyback, for owners who accept this in writing. There's precedent for this working in the used-vehicle market already: lemon-law and flood-damage titles both flag a documented condition change so future buyers can price it in, without requiring the vehicle be destroyed. This would function the same way — a documented manufacturer-owner agreement at a middle ground, rather than a binary full-remedy-or-buyback choice. This would let owners with healthy batteries keep driving, reduce prematurely retired EV packs, and likely cost manufacturers less than replacement or repurchase, while still eliminating the defect condition. I'd ask this be considered for Nissan's remedy program here, and as a standing option for future mode-specific recalls.
No injuries · No fire · No crash