I am writing to report a serious safety concern related to a recent over-the-air software update for my 2025 Volvo XC90. On March 10, 2026, I was prompted to install a software update and scheduled it to complete overnight. The following morning, the vehicle interface indicated that the update had been successfully completed. Additionally, during a routine service visit on March 12, 2026, dealership personnel also believed the update had been properly installed. However, on March 15, 2026, while driving, I experienced a critical and dangerous failure: my brakes became unresponsive, and I was unable to stop the vehicle using the brake pedal. Multiple warning lights appeared simultaneously. Fortunately, I was near my home and was able to safely bring the vehicle to a stop by coasting through nearby streets. This situation could have resulted in a catastrophic accident had it occurred on a highway or in heavy traffic, particularly as my daughter was in the vehicle at the time. The vehicle was subsequently towed to the dealership. I was informed that during the initial installation attempt, the battery voltage dropped below the required level, causing the update to pause. Critically, I received no notification that the update had failed or was incomplete, and the vehicle interface continued to indicate that the update had been successfully installed. Upon inspection on March 16, 2026, the dealership determined that the software update resumed and completed installation on March 15—while I was actively operating the vehicle. At that time, the vehicle lost communication with its electronic systems, resulting in the loss of braking functionality. This sequence of events raises a significant safety concern. A software update that can pause due to low battery voltage and later resume without any notification—particularly while the vehicle is in operation—creates an unacceptable risk to drivers, passengers, and the public.

I am filing this complaint regarding misleading and inconsistent safety labeling on the Nuna REVV convertible car seat. The car seat’s physical sticker, the Nuna website product page, and the user manual all contain conflicting information about the height and weight limits for different installation configurations (vehicle belt vs. lower anchor, rear-facing vs. forward-facing). Specifically: • The website listed rear-facing use with vehicle belt as 5–30 lbs with a height range of 18–34 inches, and lower anchor belt as 5–30 lbs. The sticker on the seat displayed the height limit only for certain configurations, suggesting height was not a factor for others. • After I raised the discrepancy, Nuna’s own customer service team initially told me the sticker was correct and the lower anchor configuration had different limits. They later reversed course after consulting their CPST team, confirming that the rear-facing maximum is 30 lbs OR 34 inches for ALL installation methods — contradicting what both the sticker and website indicated. • This means both the NHTSA-approved sticker on the seat and the website contained incorrect or misleading information at the time of purchase. My [XXX] son ([XXX]) has been using this seat rear-facing based on the published specifications, but is actually over the height limit. This is a serious safety concern. Car seat labels are NHTSA-regulated and are the primary resource parents use to determine safe use. Conflicting information between the label, manual, and website creates a situation where children may be used outside the seat’s tested parameters without their parents’ knowledge. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the labeling on the Nuna REVV to determine whether it meets federal safety labeling standards and whether a corrective action or recall is warranted. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

SPEED LIMIT indicator incorrect (example: indicator shows 80 mph speed limit on a small road in Alabama where it should be 35 mph; also, there is no road in Alabama greater than 75mph.) LANE DEPARTURE ASSIST has a hard time identifying lanes in some construction zones (this is extremely dangerous as the car is constantly trying to over-correct me) - infotainment system randomly reboots, presents a problem mostly when navigating - I have reported this issue way too many times and the infotainment system has been replaced once. REAR CAMERA comes on randomly, often when no car or object is near INFOTAINMENT system touch sensitivity is unacceptable

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving through a construction zone at an undisclosed speed, the lane-keeping assist malfunctioned, causing the vehicle to become erratic, which required the contact to forcefully engage the steering wheel to regain control of the vehicle. There was no warning light illuminated. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 18,000.

I am extremely disappointed with my 2025 Volvo XC90. The vehicle’s interface shuts down frequently, which is extremely dangerous—especially at highway speeds. On several occasions, including at night, the entire system has gone completely blank. This creates a serious safety hazard and puts lives at risk. Despite repeated complaints, the dealership has been ineffective and has provided no meaningful fix. In addition, when exiting a parking position, the exterior side mirrors deploy very slowly, making it unsafe to merge into traffic or assess surrounding vehicles. This delay is another clear hazard. Most concerning, the vehicle has shut down entirely while driving on multiple occasions. This is a life-threatening defect and completely unacceptable in a vehicle of this class. I paid over $90,000 for my XC90, expecting the highest standards of safety and reliability. Instead, I regret this purchase every day. Volvo’s failure to address these critical safety issues has severely undermined my confidence in the vehicle and the brand.