CPSC Reports Unexpected Acceleration Incident in Vanderhall Recall
Vanderhall North America has received one report of unexpected acceleration involving Brawley GTS electric vehicles, according to a CPSC recall notice.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 10:55 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 10:55 p.m. ETFirst report
Vanderhall Recalls Brawley GTS ROVs Over Unexpected Acceleration Hazard
On August 6, 2026, Vanderhall North America, LLC, of Provo, Utah, recalled about 210 Brawley GTS electric recreational off highway vehicles, according to a Consumer Product Safety Commission recall notice. The recalled vehicles can maintain speed or accelerate when the accelerator pedal is released, posing a crash hazard that carries a risk of serious injury or death.
The recall includes all model year 2024, 2025, and 2026 Vanderhall Brawley GTS electric recreational off highway vehicles. The vehicles come in Emerald Green, Ida Rose, Ivory White, Jean Grey, Obsidian Black, and Royal Blue. Affected VIN numbers range from XXXXXXXXXXXXX4933 to XXXXXXXXXXXXX6153 and are located under the dashboard on the driver's side.
According to the CPSC recall record, the firm has received one report of a vehicle unexpectedly accelerating. No injuries have been reported.
The CPSC notice states that consumers should stop using their vehicles immediately and contact Vanderhall North America for instructions on how to update their vehicles to firmware version 7.1.0 through the Vanderhall customer mobile app. The updated software was released on April 15, 2026, and can be identified by the Vanderhall logo. Owners requiring assistance updating their firmware should contact their dealer or Vanderhall directly for assistance. CPSC database records list no other enforcement actions for Vanderhall North America, LLC.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:55current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 03:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.