This is tough as at the heart is manufacturer / seller liability for use / misuse / abuse of the product they sold.

For the locks analogue, most of the advertising for the common homebuilder and homeowner lock varieties are fabrications and lies; it's incredibly easy to get through common locks. In applying the analogue to cars, it works because Ford and Toyotas are harder to steal. But what is the liability in that? Does Kia actively market the safety, security and anti-theft portion of their car like the common lock manufactures do? No-- they do not. That's where your analogue falls apart, specific anti-theft claims (moreso than general "has anti-theft") are not there for Kias, they are there for 'locks'.

There's numerous analogues for this that 'sorta' fit but with widely different outcomes. Is this like victims suing a dress manufacturer for dresses that make them more likely to suffer sexual harassment? Is this like a phone manufacture being sued by those who suffered malware/cyber attacks because they're brand of phones are targeted for vulnerabilities far more then other manufacturers are?

The court of public opinion and the case itself is going to be filled with widely different assessments of what the base 'analogue' should be. This is going to settlement without established caselaw I think, as caselaw established on this would be just such a mess.