2025 Volvo XC90 Recalls & Complaints

Incident: May 11, 2026 · Filed: September 20, 2026

I was in an accident going about 35mph. I slammed into a vehicle that turned in front of me. His vehicle was totaled with all of his airbags deployed. My issue is NOT with my airbags. My issue is that the seatbelt pretensioner system (which is designed to prevent whiplash) the emergency braking system and the hazard lights ALL did not active during, and/or after the crash. My vehicle is equipped with the safety features and collision avoidance that consists of seatbelt pretension, auto hazard lights and auto braking in the event of or to prevent a collision. Ironically, a few months before my accident, the seatbelt compression system erroneously activated during a right hand turn in my neighborhood that I make multiple times a day. Volvo the manufacturer had been contacted and did a diagnostic on it.

Incident: July 20, 2026 · Filed: September 18, 2026

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving 5 MPH from a stop, the vehicle unintendedly accelerated to 40 MPH while entering an access road and turning right. The contact was able to continue driving to the residence. The vehicle was taken to be repaired on several occasions for Google software issues. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, who was unable to duplicate the failure. The dealer contacted manufacturer and reported that there was no fault found with the vehicle. The approximate failure mileage was 20,551.

Incident: July 9, 2024 · Filed: July 31, 2026

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the safety alert audible sounds failed to function as intended. The contact stated that the alerts failed to provide an audible alert. The contact turned off the vehicle and started and the system independently reset. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, and an unknown software update was performed. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure reoccurred. The failure became persistent. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view camera screen seized. The contact stated that the rear-view camera displayed a still image. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 4,500.

Incident: June 19, 2025 · Filed: July 8, 2026

Component/system: The gear selector system failed, triggering a “Gear Selector Service Required” warning. The vehicle is a plug-in hybrid and remains available for inspection upon request. Safety risk: During the first incident, the vehicle became disabled while being driven, losing the ability to shift gears. This created a risk of being stranded in traffic and loss of vehicle control/mobility on the road. Confirmed by dealer: Yes. The dealer diagnosed a rotary encoder signal failure (DTC: TACM U200902) on the first occurrence and performed a full software update. The same warning recurred a second time; the dealer then replaced the gear selector assembly and start/brake switch module, citing liquid contamination as the cause and charging the owner approximately $1,800 as a customer-pay repair. The same warning recurred a third time only 9 days after that hardware replacement. Inspected by manufacturer: A case was opened with the manufacturer’s corporate customer care team, and the dealer opened an internal technical helpdesk (TIE) case with the manufacturer’s engineering support. However, manufacturer corporate stated it does not have access to the detailed technical findings, which are held by the dealership. Warning signs prior to failure: The “Gear Selector Service Required” message appeared as the first and only warning sign before each of the three incidents, with no other symptoms noted beforehand. Summary: This is the third occurrence of the same gear selector fault within approximately 8 months, despite one software repair and one paid hardware repair. The recurrence 9 days after replacing the allegedly contaminated components raises doubt about whether contamination was the true root cause. No comprehensive engineering root-cause analysis has been completed.

Incident: May 14, 2026 · Filed: June 8, 2026

I was parallel parked. I put the vehicle in reverse to pull out. When I’d gone a few feet in reverse I baked and the brakes were HARD and failed to stop the car immediately. I nearly hit the car behind me. He/she honked at me, that’s how close I was. It happened three times. I think in all three incidents I was going in reverse. I had the dealership look at the vehicle but they could not replicate the issue. So they claim that it is safe to drive!

Incident: April 25, 2026 · Filed: April 29, 2026

The accident avoidance system engaged during a 55mph drive on a divided 4 lane road. no other cars on road, no animals. Car swerved sharply to left half way into left lane and brakes engaged sharply, enough that driver and passenger in front went forward. after clearing warning, and proceeding down the road a few hundred feet, same thing happened. Has also occurred during navigation of a sharp curve, possible due to picking up a small reflection sign well off road.

Incident: April 6, 2026 · Filed: April 6, 2026

The original OEM tires on a 2025 Volvo XC90 (purchased new in March 2025) failed prematurely due to what appears to be a manufacturing defect. Tire size: [e.g. 275/45R20]. Brand: [e.g. Pirelli Scorpion]. DOT: 193 7B594P 1924 (manufactured week 19 of 2024). The vehicle's original tires were removed in November 2025 for winter tire installation, at which point the odometer showed 6,808 miles. The tires were stored indoors in bags and never used again until April 2026, when a professional tire shop (Discount Tire) refused to remount them on the vehicle citing unsafe condition. The tires exhibit severe sidewall bulging, starburst cracking indicating internal structural failure, and at least one tire shows a deep gash with internal steel cords exposed. Three of the four original tires are affected. The fourth original tire was replaced in June 2025 after it failed during normal highway driving - the cause was attributed to a road hazard at the time but is now believed to be the same underlying defect. The replacement tire (a different unit purchased separately) shows no defects whatsoever. The safety risk is significant: three tires with structural sidewall failure were on an active vehicle for the first 6,808 miles of its life, including at highway speeds. One tire experienced an in-service failure. The remaining three deteriorated to the point a professional installer deemed them unsafe to mount. The failed tires are available for inspection. The problem has been confirmed by an independent tire service center (Discount Tire) who refused to install due to safety concerns. The manufacturer has not yet inspected the tires. There were no warning lamps or prior symptoms before the June 2025 in-service failure, and no visible signs of the sidewall damage were observed until the tires were removed from storage in April 2026.

Incident: March 15, 2026 · Filed: March 18, 2026

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.

Incident: February 25, 2026 · Filed: March 10, 2026

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)

Incident: March 15, 2025 · Filed: January 15, 2026

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that the camera was leggy and was inoperable while in reverse. While in a parking lot and driveway, the camera was inoperable. While on flat surfaces, the parking brake engaged without application. The driver had to manually release the brake. The vehicle was restarted, and the camera worked at times. While reversing, she bumped/crashed into a piece of metal in the driveway left by workers. There was no alert indicating that there was an object there. There were no reported injuries, air bag deployment, fire, or police report filed. The Google Assistant was glitching and went into Spanish mode. While using the turn signal, there was no sound. There was no air conditioning; the center screen had frozen. The cross-traffic sensor alert was triggered, causing the auto brake system to engage when there was no object, windy weather, or rain. While using a loaner, the vehicle has similar symptoms. The contact stated the vehicle was taken to the local dealer on seven occasions for software issues, and a computer processor chip was installed. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure recurred. The manufacturer was contacted, and they opened a case. The failure mileage was 100.