EZ Lynk Lawsuit: Dismissal, Second Circuit Revival, and User Data

The EZ Lynk lawsuit is a U.S. Department of Justice enforcement action accusing EZ Lynk, SEZC of selling an illegal emissions “defeat device” in the form of its cloud-connected diesel tuning system, in violation of the Clean Air Act. Filed in March 2021 in the Southern District of New York, the case was dismissed in 2024 on Section 230 grounds, revived by the Second Circuit in August 2025, and is now back before the district court, where a separate fight has broken out over federal subpoenas seeking the identities of more than 100,000 people who downloaded the EZ Lynk app or bought its hardware.¹²

Who EZ Lynk Is and What the Product Does

EZ Lynk, SEZC is a Cayman Islands-registered company co-founded by Bradley Gintz and Thomas Wood, both based in the United States. The company launched the “EZ Lynk System” in mid-2016 as a cloud-based diagnostics and tuning platform for diesel trucks.³

The system has three parts. The “Auto Agent” is a small physical device that plugs into a truck’s OBD-II diagnostic port. The “EZ Lynk Cloud” stores software files. The “Auto Agent App” runs on a phone, connects the hardware to the cloud, and lets users download and install engine software remotely. The platform supports diesel engines from Ford, GM, and Ram trucks.¹⁴

A sister company, Prestige Worldwide, SEZC, owned by the same two founders, bought the physical Auto Agent devices from EZ Lynk and resold them to U.S. distributors. Gintz, Wood, and Prestige were all named as defendants alongside EZ Lynk.³

What the Government Alleges

The DOJ filed its complaint on March 8, 2021 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01986), invoking Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act. That provision makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, or install any part whose principal effect is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative a vehicle’s emissions controls when the seller knows or should know that is how it will be used.⁵⁶

The complaint alleges that customers used the EZ Lynk System to download and install third-party software known as “delete tunes,” which reprograms a truck’s computer to bypass its emissions controls. The government’s theory is that EZ Lynk did more than passively host that software. According to the complaint, the company offered a free cloud-based program that let third-party technicians create delete tunes, stored those tunes on the EZ Lynk Cloud, collaborated with specific tune creators (identified as PPEI and GDP Tuning) on testing and compatibility, and ran a company-administered Facebook group called the “EZ Lynk Forum” where employees provided technical support to drivers installing and troubleshooting delete tunes. Employees also “liked” or “loved” forum posts in which customers described deleting their emissions controls.⁵

The 2024 Dismissal

On March 28, 2024, the district court gave EZ Lynk a significant win. The judge found the government had adequately alleged that the EZ Lynk System qualifies as a defeat device under the Clean Air Act. Even so, the court held that EZ Lynk was entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it functioned as a platform for software written by others. Under Section 230, a provider of an “interactive computer service” generally cannot be treated as the publisher of content created by someone else.⁷

The court separately dismissed the claims against Prestige Worldwide, reasoning that Prestige sold only the physical Auto Agent hardware and that the hardware alone did not have the “principal effect” of defeating emissions controls.⁷

Some in the diesel truck community read the ruling as the case being dropped and EZ Lynk being granted immunity. That reading was wrong. The government appealed.

The Second Circuit Revival

On August 20, 2025, a three-judge Second Circuit panel of Judges Gerard Lynch, Alison Nathan, and Eunice Lee reversed the dismissal and sent the case back to the district court. The decision is reported at 149 F.4th 190.¹⁸

EZ Lynk’s argument on appeal was that it manufactured a “wireless pass-through interface and smartphone application” and that the delete tunes flowing through its cloud were written by independent third parties. Because it didn’t write the tunes, EZ Lynk said, Section 230 shielded it.⁹

The panel disagreed. Applying the “material contribution” test, it held that Section 230 immunity is lost when a provider “directly and materially contributed to” the creation of unlawful content, and that the government’s complaint plausibly alleged EZ Lynk had done so. The court pointed to four categories of conduct pleaded in the complaint:

Pre-launch collaboration with at least two delete-tune creators years before the product launched, both of whom went on to create exclusively emissions-defeating software.
An EZ Lynk patent application that specifically referenced the device’s use for defeating emissions controls.
Sales through other entities, some owned by EZ Lynk’s own founders, that shipped the platform with illegal delete software pre-installed.
Active co-administration of the Facebook forum alongside tune creators, using it to help customers install delete tunes and troubleshoot emissions removal.

¹⁰⁹

The court emphasized it was ruling on what the complaint alleged, not on the ultimate facts. EZ Lynk can still try to disprove the government’s claims through discovery and at trial. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, though, the allegations were enough to strip Section 230 out of the case.⁹

The Subpoenas for User Data

After the Second Circuit revived the case, the DOJ went after users. In March and April 2026, the government issued subpoenas to Apple, Google, Amazon, and Walmart demanding the names, addresses, and purchase histories of more than 100,000 people who had downloaded the EZ Lynk app or bought EZ Lynk hardware. Apple and Google were asked for data on app downloaders; Amazon and Walmart for data on hardware purchasers.²

The DOJ told the court the data was “reasonable and necessary” to interview witnesses about how the technology was used, and argued that users who agreed to EZ Lynk’s terms of service “no longer have a cognizable privacy interest” in the information they provided.²

EZ Lynk’s lawyers called the request overbroad, arguing that investigating alleged Clean Air Act violations “does not require identifying each person who has used the product.”¹¹ The defense also told the court that in a 2019 meeting the government had asked EZ Lynk to build a “backdoor” into its system for “government monitoring of unsuspecting users,” a request the company declined. Contacting individual users now, the defense said, would effectively signal that buying the product means “the DOJ knocking at your door.”¹²

Privacy groups raised alarms. EPIC counsel Tom McBrien said pulling personally identifiable information through civil discovery on this scale sidesteps “the privacy protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and other privacy statutes.” Aaron Mackey, deputy legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the government’s terms-of-service waiver argument “particularly problematic,” noting that most people do not read those agreements and that users could be implicated in criminal activity simply for having used the technology.²

In a joint letter filed with the court in early May 2026, Apple and Google said they intend to fight the subpoenas. No court has enforced, quashed, or modified them, and the dispute is pending.²

Where the Case Stands Now

As of mid-2026, the case is back in the Southern District of New York for further proceedings following the Second Circuit’s reversal. EZ Lynk has denied wrongdoing throughout the litigation.¹¹¹

Under the Clean Air Act, civil penalties can reach $4,819 per device for individuals and up to $48,192 per violation for manufacturers and dealers.⁶ The EZ Lynk case fits a broader federal push: beginning in 2020, the EPA designated aftermarket defeat devices as a National Enforcement and Compliance Initiative, and between fiscal years 2020 and 2023 the agency resolved 172 civil enforcement cases producing $55.5 million in civil penalties, along with 17 criminal cases yielding $5.6 million in fines and a combined 54 months of incarceration. Dedicated federal funding for the initiative lapsed in 2024, but the underlying statutes remain in force and enforcement is continuing.¹³

1
Courthouse News Service. Second Circuit Revives Government Case Over Emissions Defeat Devices
2
Forbes. Government Demands Apple and Google Identify Over 100,000 Users of Car App
3
U.S. Department of Justice. Manhattan US Attorney Sues Automobile Device Manufacturer EZ Lynk, Its Owners And
4
Driving Line. New Product Spotlight EZ Lynk Auto Agent
5
Findlaw. United States of America v. EZ Lynk, SEZC
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tampering and Defeat Devices – Enforcement Alert
7
Sidley Austin LLP. District Court Finds Communications Decency Act Provides Automotive Device Manufacturer Immunity
8
Leagle. United States v. EZ Lynk, SEZC
9
Sidley Austin LLP. Second Circuit Clarifies Scope of Communications Decency Act Immunity for Online Auto Software
10
EPIC. Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Technology Company That Created Defeat Devices
11
Pickup Truck Talk. DOJ Demands Data on 100,000 Users of EZ Lynk Diesel Truck Tuner App
12
Inside EPA. EZ Lynk Subpoena Dispute
13
Road & Track. EPA Aftermarket Tuning Shop Enforcement