Is the Lucid Gravity a Lemon? What California Owners Need to Know About Recalls, Repairs, and a New Lawsuit Involving “Bob’s Burgers” Star Eugene Mirman
Published by Hanson Law Firm | The San Diego Lemon Lawyer | www.thesandiegolemonlawyer.com
If you leased or bought a Lucid Gravity expecting the flagship reliability that came with its six-figure price tag, you’re not alone in wondering whether the vehicle lived up to the promises made when you signed on the dotted line. Since deliveries began in late 2024, the Gravity has racked up multiple federal safety recalls, a wave of owner complaints about software and electronics, and — as of this month — a closely watched lawsuit filed by a well-known actor who says Lucid leased him a “lemon.”
As a California firm that focuses exclusively on lemon law and consumer sales fraud, we track developments like these closely because they matter to our clients. Here’s what we know so far, and what it could mean if you own a Gravity that hasn’t performed the way it was marketed.
A Brief History of Lucid Motors
Lucid Group traces its roots to 2007, when it was founded as a battery technology company called Atieva, initially focused on supplying batteries for electric buses and other commercial applications. The company shifted its focus to building its own electric vehicles and rebranded as Lucid Motors in 2016, positioning itself as a Tesla challenger in the luxury EV space under the leadership of former Tesla chief engineer Peter Rawlinson.
Lucid went public in 2021 through a merger with the special purpose acquisition company Churchill Capital Corp IV, a deal that valued the company at roughly $24 billion and was accompanied by bold promises about upcoming production volumes. Those promises quickly ran into trouble: within months, Lucid disclosed that it had delivered only a fraction of the vehicles it had projected, and it pushed back the launch of its second model — the Gravity SUV — from 2023 to 2024. That shortfall triggered a securities fraud class action in the Northern District of California, and Lucid has faced additional securities litigation tied to its 2026 disclosures as well.
Today, Lucid is majority-owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and sells two vehicles: the Air sedan and the Gravity three-row SUV. The Air has earned genuine praise for its range and engineering, but Consumer Reports has rated the 2025 Air as notably less reliable than comparable vehicles, and the brand’s second act — the Gravity — has had a rockier start than Lucid’s marketing led buyers to expect.
How the Gravity Was Marketed
Lucid positioned the Gravity as a technological leap forward: a three-row luxury SUV with segment-leading range, over 440 miles in its top trim, and the same engineering pedigree that made the Air a range champion. Pricing started around $79,900 for the Touring trim and climbed to nearly $95,000 for the Grand Touring, with fully loaded Dream Edition models exceeding $120,000.
On the warranty side, Lucid advertised coverage that it presented as competitive with, or better than, established luxury automakers: a 4-year/50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, an 8-year/100,000-mile warranty on the powertrain, and an 8-year/100,000-mile battery warranty guaranteeing at least 70% retained capacity. Lucid’s marketing and ownership materials emphasized “premium ownership experience,” remote diagnostics, and a concierge-style service model designed to reinforce the message that a Gravity owner would be well taken care of if anything went wrong.
The problem, according to a growing body of owner complaints, reviews, and now litigation, is the gap between that marketing message and the day-to-day experience of actually owning a first- and second-year Gravity.
Was the Gravity Rushed to Market?
This is a fair question, and the evidence suggests the answer may be yes.
Lucid began Gravity deliveries in the final days of December 2024, starting with employees and family members before reaching retail customers. Lucid’s own senior engineering leadership later acknowledged that the software running in those early vehicles was not fully production-ready. Owners in the months that followed reported a consistent set of complaints: key fobs the car failed to recognize, frozen infotainment screens, malfunctioning navigation, and climate control glitches.
Independent reviewers were blunt about it. Consumer Reports labeled its early Gravity test vehicle “Incomplete,” citing significant glitches and missing features expected at launch. MotorTrend was more pointed, describing the SUV as arriving with “unrefined elements” and buggy software, and ranked it behind competitors like the Cadillac Vistiq and Volvo EX90 in a head-to-head comparison. On Lucid’s own owner forums, longtime enthusiasts who wanted to love the car have described the launch as using paying customers as beta testers for software that wasn’t finished.
Lucid’s interim CEO has publicly acknowledged the company “fell short” on the Gravity rollout, and an April 2026 quarter-over-quarter delivery decline of 42% was tied directly to a nearly month-long halt in Gravity shipments related to a safety recall. An industry insider account reported by automotive trade press attributed at least some of the company’s operational stumbles to rushed software and process failures rather than pure manufacturing capacity — in other words, a company still building the infrastructure to support the vehicles it was already selling.
None of this means every Gravity is defective. But it does suggest that early buyers and lessees had reason to expect a more finished product than what many of them received — which is precisely the kind of gap between advertising and reality that our consumer protection and lemon law statutes are designed to address.
Recalls and Common Problems
As of this writing, NHTSA has issued three separate recalls affecting the 2025–2026 Lucid Gravity:
Rearview camera failure (software). Gravity vehicles running software versions prior to 3.3.20 could display a blank or frozen rearview camera image when shifted into reverse, reducing the driver’s view behind the vehicle. Lucid addressed this with an over-the-air update, though not all owners had installed it by the time of the recall filing.
Front seat airbag mismatch. A labeling error at Lucid’s seat supplier resulted in incorrect backrest covers being installed on some front seats, which could prevent the side airbags from deploying properly in a crash. Lucid mailed notification letters to affected owners in January 2026 and is inspecting and replacing covers free of charge.
Second-row seat belt anchor welds. In one of the more serious recalls, Lucid found that the welds securing the second-row outboard lap belt anchor brackets on 4,476 Gravity SUVs may have been insufficient, risking bracket failure — and belt failure — in a crash. Lucid has said the defect traces back to its supplier, Camaco, which allegedly altered the approved weld specification without Lucid’s authorization. Lucid issued a stop-sale order and paused deliveries for nearly a month while it addressed the issue.
Beyond the recalls, owners have consistently flagged a cluster of non-recall issues in NHTSA complaint data, dealer forums, and press coverage: key fob and proximity-sensor failures that leave the car unable to recognize its own key, frozen or glitchy center displays, unreliable navigation, and climate control malfunctions. Because the Gravity is still a relatively new model, it doesn’t yet have a scored reliability rating from Consumer Reports or J.D. Power, but the pattern of complaints, software patches, and recalls in its first two years on the road is notable for a vehicle marketed on the strength of its engineering.
The Mirman Lawsuit: A High-Profile Test Case
On August 19, 2026, comedian and actor Eugene Mirman — best known as the voice of Gene Belcher on Fox’s Bob’s Burgers — filed suit against Lucid Group USA in Massachusetts state court. According to court filings, Mirman alleges that Lucid leased him a defective Gravity SUV, characterizing it in his complaint as a “lemon.”
Mirman’s Gravity also received national attention earlier in 2026 when it was involved in a serious single-vehicle crash at a New Hampshire toll plaza that left the SUV engulfed in flames, with Mirman pulled from the burning vehicle and hospitalized with serious injuries. Mirman later posted publicly that he was recovering and thanked the first responders and bystanders who helped free him from the wreckage.
The lawsuit Mirman filed in August is a breach-of-warranty and consumer-protection style claim over the vehicle Lucid leased to him, brought under Massachusetts law. As with any newly filed case, the full scope of the specific defects alleged will become clearer as the litigation proceeds, and Lucid has not yet had the opportunity to respond in court. We’ll continue to monitor the case and update this post as more details become available.
What makes the Mirman case significant isn’t just the celebrity attached to it — it’s that it puts a national spotlight on the same category of complaints California Gravity owners have been raising for months: a premium vehicle, sold with premium warranty promises, that has not always delivered a premium (or even reliably functional) ownership experience.
What This Means If You Own a Lucid Gravity in California
California’s lemon law — the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — is one of the strongest consumer protection statutes in the country, and it applies fully to electric vehicles, including the Lucid Gravity. In general terms, if your vehicle has a defect covered by its warranty that Lucid has been unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts, or if it has been out of service for repairs for an extended period, you may be entitled to a refund, a replacement vehicle, or cash compensation — regardless of how the manufacturer’s own warranty language tries to characterize the problem.
Recalls are also relevant even if your car has already been “fixed.” A vehicle that required a safety recall repair, especially one involving supplier-caused structural defects like the seat belt weld issue, can still support a lemon law claim if it experienced other unresolved problems during the same ownership period, or if the recall repair itself didn’t fully resolve the underlying issue.
Software glitches, key fob failures, and infotainment problems are not automatically “minor” issues in the eyes of the law. If they substantially impair the use, value, or safety of your vehicle, and Lucid has not been able to fix them, they can form the basis of a claim.
Talk to a California Lemon Law Attorney
If your Lucid Gravity has been in for repeated repairs, if you’ve dealt with recall-related delivery delays, or if you feel the vehicle simply hasn’t lived up to what Lucid promised when you bought or leased it, Hanson Law Firm can review your repair history and warranty documentation at no cost to you. California law generally requires manufacturers to cover the consumer’s attorney’s fees in a successful lemon law case, which means pursuing a claim typically costs our clients nothing out of pocket.
Contact Hanson Law Firm today at www.thesandiegolemonlawyer.com, contact@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com, phone: 858.451.0291, to discuss your Lucid Gravity and find out whether you may be entitled to a refund, replacement, or cash compensation.
Details regarding the Mirman v. Lucid Group USA litigation are based on publicly available reporting as of the date of this post and are subject to change as the case proceeds.
Legal Disclaimer & Notice of Attorney Advertising
Attorney Advertising
This website, including all blog posts, articles, and other content (collectively, the “Site”), is provided by [Law Firm Name] for general informational purposes only. The Site constitutes attorney advertising under the California Rules of Professional Conduct and applicable provisions of the California Business and Professions Code.
No Legal Advice. Nothing on this Site constitutes legal advice. The information provided is general in nature and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts, or settlements. Legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to any specific set of facts requires the involvement of an attorney who has agreed to represent you and who is familiar with your particular circumstances. You should not rely on, act upon, or refrain from acting upon any information on this Site without first seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
No Attorney-Client Relationship. Your use of this Site, including reading its content, submitting an inquiry through a contact form, or emailing the firm, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Hanson Law Firm or any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship is formed only after the Hanson Law Firm has agreed to represent you, conflicts have been cleared, and a signed engagement agreement is in place. Do not send any confidential or time-sensitive information through this Site until such a relationship has been established.
No Guarantee of Results. Any results described on this Site, including case results, testimonials, or endorsements, are based on the specific facts and circumstances of those particular matters. They do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any other legal matter, including yours. Every case is different, and past performance is not indicative of future results.
Jurisdictional Limitations. [Law Firm Name]’s attorneys are licensed to practice law in the State of California [and list any other jurisdictions]. This Site is not intended to solicit business in, or provide legal advice concerning the laws of, any jurisdiction in which the firm’s attorneys are not authorized to practice.
Responsible Attorney. The attorney responsible for this website’s content is John W. Hanson, a member of the State Bar of California (Bar No. 214771), whose principal office is located at 7752 Fay Ave., Ste. F, La Jolla, CA 92037; phone: 858.451.0291; email: contact@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com.
Third-Party Links. This Site may contain links to third-party websites. [Law Firm Name] does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of any linked site.