Working on behalf of General Motors (GM), a Brattle team rebutted the plaintiffs’ claims that GM’s alleged failure to provide earlier notice of recalls related to ignitions, side airbags, and power steering systems caused consumers to overpay for new GM cars incorporating these components. Our analysis showed that the plaintiffs’ experts had failed to calculate the amount of this overpayment, which would have required them to estimate the market price for the vehicles with and without earlier disclosure. Instead of estimating these market prices, which are determined by the intersection of supply and demand, the plaintiffs’ experts provided a survey-based analysis that could – at best – capture the demand side of the market. Consistent with our findings, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ analysis of conjoint survey data did not meet the requirements of the plaintiffs’ “benefit of the bargain” damages theory. The final settlement was less than 1% of the plaintiffs’ original $17 billion damages claim.