“at no point did you mention the $3,000.00 warranty cost or the $466.00 ResistAll cost.”

💡 Direct evidence that staff concealed charges and did not disclose products to the consumer before adding them to the contract.

“I was lied [to] by your Finance Department. . . . I was told . . . that I must have a Honda Care, a Car Maintenance and Resist All package in order to be able to finance. I was clear when I said I was not interested yet I was told I must have.”

💡 Shows dealership staff falsely represented optional add-ons as mandatory to secure financing, a key FTC allegation.

“Finance guy . . . lies to his clients[.] He told me that I had to buy [$]3,000 warranty.”

💡 Confirms pattern of staff misrepresenting add-ons as required, corroborating widespread deceptive practices.

“Honda of McDavid cheated during the signing. Finance manager added additional warranties [to] my payment plan even though I didn’t request or he didn’t explained to me any of them.”

💡 Documents staff adding products to contracts without explanation or consent, a core element of the unauthorized charges allegation.

“I discovered that my loan had been changed from a 72-month to an 84-month term without my consent, masking not only hidden charges for unwanted add-ons, but also a vehicle price increase of more than a thousand dollars.”

💡 Illustrates how dealerships manipulated loan terms to hide unauthorized charges and inflate total costs without consumer knowledge.

“pretty concerning”

💡 Asbury’s own Regional Finance and Insurance Director acknowledged the severity of the complaint evidence, yet leadership did not act to remedy the harm or stop the conduct.

“Respondents treat Black and Latino consumers differently from non-Latino White consumers. Respondents target Black and Latino consumers with packed add-ons and higher-priced add-ons. For example, Respondents encourage employees to pack add-ons more often in contracts with Latino consumers and consumers who are non-native English speakers.”

💡 Establishes that discrimination was not incidental but a deliberate targeting strategy based on race and language, violating federal civil rights law.

“No legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons exist for the Respondents charging higher prices for the same or similar add-ons to Black and Latino consumers than to similarly situated non-Latino White consumers.”

💡 Legal finding that the racial disparities in pricing were intentional discrimination, not explained by any lawful business reason.

“all sales and finance managers were doctoring customer applications, signing for the customer, and destroying the original applications.”

💡 Internal finding that widespread document fraud was not limited to a few bad actors but was systemic across the dealership’s management team.

“enhanc[ing] their pay at the expense of our customers.”

💡 Asbury’s own investigator acknowledged that employees were exploiting customers for personal financial gain, implicating the company’s compensation structure.

“Make sure he brings the review down.”

💡 Shows leadership prioritized reputation management over addressing consumer harm, pressuring complainants to remove public evidence of fraud.

“Asbury periodically audits its dealerships for misconduct. Asbury’s audit process relies on what the dealerships document in writing; Asbury does not contact consumers during the audit process to ask what employees at the dealership told them or what consumers understood about add-ons.”

💡 Reveals that Asbury’s compliance system was designed to rely on the very documents that employees were falsifying, allowing fraud to escape detection.

“Many consumers do not catch the dealers’ misrepresentations before the paperwork is signed and the transaction is finalized. But even if consumers were to discover false representations or unauthorized charges mid-transaction, it is often unrealistic for consumers to walk away at that point.”

💡 Explains the structural power imbalance that makes consumers vulnerable to these tactics, even when they suspect wrongdoing.

“As a rule, Asbury does not contact consumers after the audits, even if they determine that consumers have been the victim of Deceptive Practice[s].”

💡 Demonstrates that Asbury knowingly left victimized consumers in the dark and did not offer refunds or corrections, prioritizing corporate interests over restitution.

“You never see the detailed billing until you have signed everything. They tell you fabric protection is free, but the final bill showed $850.”

💡 Documents the tactic of withholding pricing information until after signatures are obtained, a deliberate strategy to lock consumers into unauthorized charges.