The first hurdle is standing. Since most of the other cars on the road are more harmful to you than the VW LEVs, you'd have to show that 'but for that purchase

The first hurdle is standing. Since most of the other cars on the road are more harmful to you than the VW LEVs, you'd have to show that 'but for that purchase', you'd have been in better shape, which is unlikely. That said, the parent makes a decent point - if they were looking specifically for LEVs, they might well have bought an electric or hybrid vs. a diesel. In that case, you might be able to show standing. Of course, then you have to prove that the amount of emissions involved in producing the electricity for a Tesla are less than the emissions produced by the VW. I have no idea what the math on that looks like, so it could be impossible, or very easy, but you've got to prove it to win the suit. Because civil cases have a lower bar, you might be able to get to this point without too much effort. What really kills you though, is in establishing mens rea, because it's absolutely impossible. Since consumers could not have known that emissions were falsified, they could not have had the intent to harm you for profit. Again here you slightly benefit from the lower burden of intent on civil cases, as negligence or recklessness can count, but that's out the window on the facts, as the owner was specifically choosing a lower emissions vehicle in the first place, presumably so that they would be killing their brethren less, or less quickly.