MX-5 Rust - why no recall?

[.blue]

It seems that a significantly high proportion of MX-5's are rusting in dangerous ways (i.e. in a way that would reduce safety in event of an accident) - particularly the Mk 2 and Mk 2.5.

I am no legal expert but if a car is dangerous to use within 10 years of its life, is there not a case here that the car is not fit for purpose?

Why are owners paying for this when it really should be Mazda?

Another question: those who have cars with a full Mazda service history, have the dealers completed the body reports? If they had, a lot of rust issues would have been picked up far earlier.