July 27, 2026 - A class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz over exploding panoramic sunroofs has been dismissed after more than three years of court proceedings.

The suit claimed that sunroofs in numerous models would spontaneously shatter both when vehicles were stationary and while in motion.

The four owners who brought the case highlighted how the glass breaks absent any external impact or force applied to the sunroof.

Models listed in the complaint include:

2011-present Mercedes-Benz C-Class
2014-present Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz GL-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class
2012-present Mercedes-Benz M-Class
2012-present Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class
2015-2017 Mercedes Maybach S-600
2011-2012 Mercedes-Benz R-Class
2011-present Mercedes-Benz S-Class
2011-2019 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class

Mercedes reportedly knew about the issue since 2006 but did not warn owners or provide free repairs for the panoramic sunroofs.

Plaintiffs described the alarming experience of sunroofs bursting while driving which creates dangerous distractions as glass falls on occupants.

Claims from three plaintiffs had already been dismissed leaving four remaining. Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. has now ended the class action following a motion to dismiss filed by Mercedes.

Mercedes argued that plaintiffs only showed sunroofs can occasionally break and that its models are no exception. The company maintained there is no supporting evidence for claims that laminated glass causes the fractures.

Mercedes told the court the lawsuit must end because plaintiffs never produced the shattered sunroofs making it impossible to prove the breaks were not caused by external factors such as road debris.

An expert for Mercedes stated that root cause failure analysis to identify defects cannot be performed without the actual sunroofs available for inspection.

The expert also noted that analysis of sunroof fractures from 2006 to 2016 showed an incident rate of about 0.0086 percent which demonstrates the panoramic sunroofs lack defects across the listed models.

The judge observed that all four plaintiffs visited dealerships under warranty yet the warranty terms require proof of a manufacturing defect which was not provided leading to denied claims.

The judge dismissed the case ruling that plaintiffs failed to supply sufficient evidence linking Mercedes to the sunroof issues.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the name Natalie Bolling v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Irby Law LLC.