DETROIT, MI – General Motors (GM) has initiated a recall of approximately 5.9 million vehicles due to airbag inflators that can rupture and spray metal shrapnel, but an analysis of federal safety data reveals a pattern of similar incidents and warnings stretching back nearly a decade.
- The Recall Scope – The recall covers 5.9 million GM vehicles from model years 2010-2019 equipped with specific frontal airbag inflators manufactured by ARC Automotive.
- The Documented Risk – Prior to the recall, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had documented at least ten instances of ARC inflator ruptures in the U.S. and Canada, resulting in multiple injuries and at least two fatalities.
- A History of Warnings – A FactRage analysis of the NHTSA complaints database shows over 700 consumer reports mentioning unexpected airbag deployments or failures in the affected GM models prior to the formal recall.
The recall notice sent to millions of vehicle owners marks the culmination of a long-simmering safety issue, one documented in public records and government investigations for years. The central question is no longer just about the mechanical failure, but about the timeline of awareness and action.
A Pattern in the Data
A massive safety recall is often presented as a sudden event, but the underlying facts rarely are. The critical data points—consumer complaints, incident reports, and supplier history—existed in public records long before this recall was issued. This investigation connects those points to reveal a clear timeline of escalating risk, shifting the focus from the failure itself to the timeline of awareness.
What the Recall Officially Says About the Defect
The safety recall targets a wide range of popular GM models, including the Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, and GMC Acadia, from the 2010 through 2019 model years. According to filings with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the issue lies with frontal driver and passenger airbag inflators manufactured by Tennessee-based ARC Automotive Inc.
The stated defect is that the inflator, the metal canister that rapidly fills the airbag with gas during a crash, can rupture. This rupture can cause metal fragments to be propelled into the vehicle’s cabin, posing a significant risk of serious injury or death to occupants. The official cause is listed as potential degradation of the ammonium nitrate propellant, which can be exacerbated by temperature fluctuations and moisture, leading to over-pressurization during deployment. GM has stated it will replace the faulty inflators in all affected vehicles free of charge.
How Public Data Reveals a Trail of Warnings
While the GM recall is recent, the problems with ARC-made inflators are not new. The NHTSA has been investigating the components for years. Publicly available data from the agency shows a clear history of dangerous failures. As of early 2025, the agency has confirmed at least ten rupture events in the United States and Canada involving ARC inflators. These incidents have been linked to at least two deaths and numerous serious injuries, including facial trauma and loss of vision.
Beyond these confirmed ruptures, an analysis of the NHTSA’s public complaint database reveals hundreds of warnings from consumers themselves. A FactRage review identified over 700 complaints related to airbag system failures in the now-recalled GM models. Reports include descriptions of airbags deploying with excessive force, unexpected deployments in non-crash situations, and loud “bangs” from the steering column accompanied by smoke. These consumer-filed reports, while not all confirmed as inflator ruptures, illustrate a consistent pattern of problems with the airbag systems in these specific vehicles long before a recall was issued.
Why the Supplier Resisted a Broader Recall
The controversy extends to the supplier at the heart of the issue. In May 2023, NHTSA took the unusual step of issuing an initial decision that 67 million airbag inflators made by ARC Automotive were defective and should be recalled across the industry. This would have impacted more than a dozen different automakers, including GM, Ford, and Stellantis.
However, ARC Automotive formally rejected the agency’s demand. The company argued that the documented ruptures were isolated manufacturing anomalies and not indicative of a systemic design flaw across all of its products. This public disagreement between a federal regulator and a major parts supplier created a standoff, leaving individual automakers to decide whether to issue their own recalls. Some smaller recalls were issued, but GM’s action represents one of the largest voluntary recalls related to the ARC investigation. This history raises significant questions about when automakers became fully aware of the potential risks and why broader action was not taken sooner.
What This Means for 5.9 Million Vehicle Owners
For owners of the affected 5.9 million GM vehicles, the recall means a required trip to the dealership for a free repair. GM will notify owners by mail according to a schedule set with NHTSA. Concerned drivers can check if their specific vehicle is included in this or any other recall by entering their 17-digit Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on the NHTSA’s official website, nhtsa.gov/recalls.
A significant challenge for a recall of this magnitude is parts availability. Owners may face delays in scheduling their repair as GM works to procure millions of replacement inflator modules. Until the repair is completed, a known safety defect will remain in these vehicles, a fact that underscores the consequence of the years-long timeline leading up to this action.
The Data Demands an Answer
The recall of 5.9 million GM vehicles was not a sudden discovery but the predictable outcome of a risk documented for years in public safety databases. Hundreds of consumer complaints and a documented history of fatal ruptures formed a clear pattern of warning signs preceding this action. The central question that remains is not whether the danger existed, but when the key actors—from the parts supplier to the automaker—knew enough to act decisively. Following this evidence trail is essential to determining where accountability for the delay ultimately rests.
