A Study of Recall Completion Rates

06 July 2015 Dashboard Insights Blog

This post was written by special guest authors Neil Steinkamp, Managing Director, and  Jake Reed, Manager, from Stout Risious Ross.

There has been much attention recently regarding the efforts made to complete recalls in a timely and effective manner. Significant, high-profile recalls have garnered media attention as well as regulatory scrutiny as OEMs have faced challenges in ensuring consumers respond to recall notifications and have repairs completed. Recall administration is not as easy as it may seem, but the industry is making progress in responding to new challenges.

We have researched and analyzed available data from the Quarterly Progress Reports (“QPR”) that manufacturers submit to National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) to see just how well companies are doing with their recall administration. What did we find? For the last 10 years, recall completion rates have modestly increased. The average completion for recalls completed inched up from 76 percent to 80 percent in the period from 2004 through 2013. Median completion rates have demonstrated a similar increase over the period, from 75 percent to 85 percent. 

Completion rates vary significantly depending on several factors, one of which is the type of component that failed. For example, completion rates for air bags and seat belts were, on average, much lower than those for power train and steering-related defects throughout the last 10 years. Relatively high completion rates for power train components—which average 83 percent—may be tied to longer manufacturer warranties for such components, providing owners a greater incentive to visit their authorized dealership to have these repairs completed. Vehicle speed control and seat belt related recalls are the lowest for completion rates, at about 70 percent and 71 percent, respectively. 

Two other factors that strongly influence recall completion rates are vehicle age and the size of the recall. Completion rates for recalls involving older vehicles are generally lower, often significantly. The widest disparity is between vehicles older than three years at the time of recall (59 percent completion rate) and newer than three years (80 percent). The likely reason for this difference is that many vehicle warranties (for a majority of components) last for three years. 

Further, completion rates for larger recalls (more than 100,000 units) are often approximately 5 percent to 10 percent lower than for smaller-sized recalls. This happens because a limited recall is likely to be much more directed to vehicle owners who are or have been impacted by the issue, making them more likely to take their vehicles in for the repair. Larger recalls may be broader, and there is a greater chance that owners did not experience the defect and might not view a repair as a priority.

SRR has also identified recalls with the lowest completion rates historically. As part of this analysis, SRR has considered different time periods, including 2000-present, 2005-present, and 2010-present. It is apparent that average completion rates for the recalls with the lowest completion rates are generally less than 70 percent, with variance observed across different OEMs and time periods. Similar to our analysis of recall completion rates more generally, completion rates for these recalls have also increased in recent years. This appears to support that the industry has made improvements in the recall administration process leading to higher completion rates for even the recalls with the lowest of completion rates. 

Other Qualitative Factors Impacting Completion Rates

In addition to the factors described above, it is important to appreciate that certain factors may negatively influence completion rates. Such factors may include:

  • Consumer fatigue due to significant recent increases in recall volumes;
  • Consumer perception of severity and the inconvenience of repair may be leading some to delay immediate action;
  • The aging U.S. vehicle fleet has resulted in a larger number of vehicles being unreachable for repair; and
  • Consumers are increasingly technologically inclined, making them less likely to respond to paper mailings.

These factors are supported by results of consumer surveys done by various research organizations as well as by discussions with industry experts, many of which SRR has consulted with in preparing its study and the associated 2015 Automotive Warranty and Recall Report.

However, other factors are having a positive impact on recall completion rates observed. For example, one company that works on recall completion outreach with many automakers has found success through a combination of postcard mailers, email and phone outreach to track down and demonstrate to owners that they need to repair their vehicles.

For more information see here and here. Finally, a recent presentation by SRR through the Society of Automotive Analysts (SAA) regarding a variety of recall and warranty issues can also be found here.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services


Ten Minute Interview: M&A Challenges & Opportunities
23 November 2022
Sujata “Sue” Sachdeva and Koss Corp.
23 November 2022
Cannabis Company Cops to SEC Accounting Fraud Charges
22 November 2022
Legal News: Cannabis Industry
Foley Automotive Report
22 November 2022
Dashboard Insights
CLE Weeks
5-16 December 2022
Milwaukee, WI
Foley Sponsors Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year® Program
1 December 2021 - 30 November 2022
Michigan and Northwest Ohio Region
2022 Distressed Investing Conference
28 November 2022
New York, NY
Meet and Greet and Panel Discussion with E. Martin Estrada and Cuauhtemoc Ortega
28 November 2022
Los Angeles, CA