Analyzing the Napleton Auto $10M settlement with the FTC for consumer fraud & racial discrimination.

📎 Source Note: Transparency is essential in journalism. The facts and figures presented in this article are derived directly from the legal filings in this case. A copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article. We encourage readers to review the primary source document for themselves.

Corporate Corruption Case Study: Napleton Auto Group & Its Impact on Consumers

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction: Deception at the Dealership
  2. Inside the Allegations: A Pattern of Corporate Misconduct
  3. Regulatory Failures and Corporate Exploitation
  4. Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Driving Force
  5. The Economic Fallout: Consumers Foot the Bill
  6. Environmental & Public Health Risks: An Unseen Dimension
  7. Exploitation of Workers: The Human Cost Within
  8. Community Impact: Targeting Vulnerability
  9. The PR Machine: Managing the Narrative
  10. Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: The Napleton Case
  11. Global Parallels: A Familiar Story of Predation
  12. Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: A Slap on the Wrist?
  13. Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy
  14. Conclusion: Systemic Corruption Laid Bare
  15. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

1. Introduction: Deception at the Dealership

Imagine walking into a car dealership, lured by an advertised price, only to find yourself hours later signing a mountain of paperwork, rushed through the process, and ultimately charged hundreds or thousands of dollars for products and services you never agreed to buy, or were told were mandatory. Worse yet, imagine that because of your race, you were charged significantly more in interest and fees than other customers with similar creditworthiness. This wasn’t a hypothetical scenario for potentially tens of thousands of customers at dealerships associated with the Ed Napleton Automotive Group. According to a joint complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Attorney General of Illinois, this pattern of deception and discrimination was a reality, resulting in consumers being illicitly charged over $70 million for unwanted add-on products since 2017!

The case against Napleton Auto Group and several of its dealerships across multiple states (Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri) culminates not in a trial, but in a stipulated order – a settlement. While the defendants admitted no wrongdoing outside of jurisdiction, they agreed to pay $10 million and adhere to stringent operational changes. The allegations laid bare in the legal documents paint a damning picture of corporate misconduct, targeting vulnerable consumers, particularly Black customers, through deceptive sales tactics and discriminatory financing schemes A survey indicated that a staggering 83% of Napleton customers were charged for add-ons without authorization or due to deception.

This case serves as a depressing illustration of how corporate structures can facilitate widespread consumer harm. It highlights systemic failures endemic within certain sectors operating under the pressures of neoliberal capitalism – where deregulation can create enforcement gaps, regulatory agencies may struggle to keep pace, and the relentless pursuit of profit maximization incentivizes practices that exploit consumers. The Napleton case reveals how complex transactions, information asymmetry, and discretionary policies can be weaponized against ordinary people, turning the American dream of car ownership into a nightmare of hidden fees and discriminatory costs. This article delves into the specifics alleged in the Napleton case, using the official complaint and settlement order as its sole factual basis, to understand not just what happened, but how such systemic failures enable corporate corruption and harm individuals and communities.

Note: everything in this case is factually sourced from the FTC’s lawsuit against Napoleon Automotive. The in-text citations will say [cite: ] followed by the section of the attached legal documents that was sourced to reach my claims.

2. Inside the Allegations: A Pattern of Corporate Misconduct

The legal complaint filed jointly by the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General against North American Automotive Services, Inc. (doing business as Ed Napleton Automotive Group) and eight affiliated dealerships, along with one general manager, Hitko Kadric, details a multi-pronged strategy allegedly designed to extract maximum profit from consumers through deception and discrimination [cite: 2940, 2966-2975]. The core allegations revolve around two primary areas: deceptive and unauthorized add-on charges and discriminatory financing practices targeting Black consumers.

Deceptive and Unauthorized Add-On Charges

Auto dealerships commonly boost profits by selling “add-on” products and services like extended warranties, GAP insurance, paint protection, and service contracts alongside the vehicle itself[cite: 2949]. These add-ons can significantly inflate the final cost, often by hundreds or even thousands of dollars[cite: 2950, 2996]. The complaint alleges that Napleton dealerships routinely and systematically tacked on charges for these add-ons without consumers’ express, informed consent[cite: 2951, 2991, 3098].

The alleged scheme often began by luring customers with low advertised prices[cite: 2983]. Consumers calling to confirm were assured of minimal extra fees[cite: 2984]. However, after investing significant time—often hours—test driving, selecting a vehicle, and negotiating the price and financing terms[cite: 2986, 2987], customers were presented with a complex stack of paperwork, sometimes exceeding 60 pages[cite: 2988, 2990]. Dealership employees allegedly rushed consumers through this closing process, merely pointing where to sign without adequate explanation[cite: 2989, 2990].

Buried within these documents, the complaint states, were charges for add-ons consumers never agreed to purchase[cite: 2991, 2998]. These charges were frequently rolled into the total amount financed, spread across monthly payments, making them harder for consumers to immediately detect[cite: 2992]. The complaint cites a Napleton training document that even listed “Non-disclosed packages” as one of the top four complaint types received by the corporate office, suggesting internal awareness of the issue[cite: 2999].

One particularly egregious example outlined in the complaint involved a consumer at Napleton’s Arlington Heights CDJR who agreed on a total vehicle price[cite: 3000]. The consumer provided a $4,000 down payment, expecting it to reduce the amount owed on the car. Instead, the dealership allegedly applied the down payment to cover roughly $4,000 in unauthorized add-on charges tacked onto the deal without consent[cite: 3001]. The result? The consumer’s down payment vanished into unwanted fees, and they still owed the full negotiated price of the vehicle[cite: 3002]. Numerous consumers reported similar experiences, being charged for multiple unwanted add-ons[cite: 3003]. In one instance, a dealership acknowledged charging a consumer for seven add-ons without authorization but refused a full refund, claiming one product was non-cancellable, despite the consumer never agreeing to it in the first place[cite: 3004, 3005].

The deception allegedly took other forms as well. Consumers reported being told certain add-ons, like oil changes or windshield protection, were “free” or included with the vehicle purchase, only to later discover charges for them on the final contract[cite: 3006, 3007, 3010]. One consumer, who lived far from the dealership and had insurance covering windshields, was told services were included but was later charged $426 for them[cite: 3007, 3008, 3010]. The same consumer initially declined an expensive extended warranty, agreed only after being offered a discount, but was ultimately charged the full $3,937, plus an additional $289 for window etching they never knew about or authorized[cite: 3009, 3010, 3011]. Attempts to cancel these charges and obtain refunds were met with unreturned calls[cite: 3013].

Even when consumers explicitly declined specific add-ons like maintenance packages or GAP insurance, the complaint alleges dealerships inserted the charges anyway[cite: 3015, 3016, 3018]. One customer stated they were charged for VIN etching despite declining it, and the dealership insisted the charge was irreversible[cite: 3017].

False Claims of Mandatory Add-Ons

In other instances, rather than hiding the charges, Napleton dealerships allegedly falsely claimed the add-ons were mandatory to purchase the vehicle or secure financing[cite: 2952, 2993, 3019]. These required add-ons, often costing between $1,395 and $2,495 per vehicle[cite: 3043], were not included in advertised prices or initial quotes[cite: 2993]. When consumers objected or tried to buy the vehicle at the advertised price without the unwanted extras, dealership employees allegedly insisted the add-ons were not optional[cite: 2994, 3021].

One consumer, attracted by a website price and having confirmed it beforehand, drove over three hours to a Napleton dealership[cite: 3022]. Upon arrival, they were informed the price was $2,495 higher due to a mandatory Napleton add-on package[cite: 3023]. Another consumer saw a car advertised online for $27,699 but was told at the dealership they had to pay an extra $1,300 for an add-on package[cite: 3025]. Despite repeated attempts to purchase at the advertised price, a salesman insisted the package was required[cite: 3026, 3027]. Only after significant pushback did the salesman agree to “offset” the cost in the vehicle price, effectively limiting the consumer’s ability to negotiate further[cite: 3028].

A customer at Napleton’s Elmhurst Kia/Acura noticed their purchase price was nearly $1,000 higher than expected[cite: 3029]. Only when questioned did the salesman reveal the charge for an add-on package[cite: 3030]. When the consumer declined it, the salesman refused to remove it, stating the full package was required[cite: 3031, 3033]. Similarly, Napleton’s Kissimmee CDJR added over $700 in unwanted add-ons to a contract, including a maintenance plan the consumer didn’t want due to distance[cite: 3034, 3035]. When the consumer asked for removal before signing, they were told the add-ons were mandatory[cite: 3036]. Ironically, in responses to third-party complaints, Napleton dealerships admitted the add-ons were not actually required[cite: 3038].

Dealerships also allegedly falsely claimed add-ons were required by financing companies. A salesman at Napleton’s Northlake CDJR told a consumer a $900 GAP insurance policy was necessary for loan approval, which the financing company later confirmed was untrue[cite: 3039, 3040]. Another Napleton dealership told a consumer $3,400 in add-ons were required by the finance company, a claim the finance company also refuted[cite: 3041].

The complaint asserts that obtaining refunds for these unauthorized or deceptively sold add-ons was difficult, with many consumers receiving only partial refunds or none at all[cite: 3044].

Discriminatory Financing Practices

Beyond deceptive add-on charges, the complaint alleges that the Corporate Defendants engaged in systematic discrimination against Black consumers in financing[cite: 2953, 3059, 3126]. Like many dealerships, Napleton arranged vehicle financing through third-party lenders[cite: 3047]. These lenders provide a “buy rate” – the base interest rate reflecting the applicant’s credit risk[cite: 3049]. However, the Napleton Corporate Defendants maintained a discretionary policy allowing sales personnel to add a finance charge markup to this buy rate[cite: 3052, 3053]. This markup was not based on credit risk but was kept by the dealership as profit, compensated by the finance company from the increased interest revenue[cite: 3054, 3056]. The policy also allowed staff to steer consumers toward financing entities that permitted higher markups[cite: 3057].

According to the FTC and Illinois AG, this discretionary system resulted in Black borrowers being charged significantly more than similarly situated non-Latino White borrowers, at least since 2017[cite: 3059]. Based on data from tens of thousands of consumers financed through Napleton dealerships, Black borrowers paid, on average, approximately $190 more in interest due to higher markups (an average difference of 18.4 basis points)[cite: 3060]. Furthermore, Black consumers were charged more often for add-ons and paid approximately $99 more on average for similar add-on packages than non-Latino White consumers[cite: 3061, 3062].

The complaint asserts these disparities were statistically significant and could not be explained by differences in underwriting risk or credit characteristics[cite: 3063]. The plaintiffs argue this practice constitutes illegal discrimination based on race, violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) [cite: 3114, 3115, 3126, 3127] and Regulation B[cite: 3115, 3128]. The discretionary policy, they contend, was not justified by any legitimate business necessity that couldn’t be met by a less discriminatory alternative[cite: 3064].

Unlawful Advertising Practices

The complaint also specifically targets Napleton’s Arlington Heights CDJR and its General Manager, Hitko Kadric, for unlawful advertising practices in Illinois [cite: 2954, 3065-3084]. In April 2021, the dealership allegedly sent direct mailers to Chicago-area residents offering a “$3,000 Gift Card” usable as a discount voucher towards a new vehicle[cite: 3065, 3066, 3067]. This, the complaint argues, violated Illinois regulations prohibiting free gifts where the price is negotiated [cite: 3069] and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act’s prohibition on using coupons in vehicle sales[cite: 3071, 3072, 3157, 3159]. Kadric allegedly reviewed and approved this advertisement[cite: 3068].

The same mailer allegedly stated “$90 DOWN”[cite: 3074], a “triggering term” under both Illinois regulations [cite: 3075] and the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA)[cite: 3104]. Using such a term legally requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of other credit terms, such as the repayment terms and the Annual Percentage Rate (APR)[cite: 3076, 3106]. The mailer failed to provide these required disclosures[cite: 3077, 3079]. Additionally, the mailer advertised “RECEIVE UP TO: 30% OFF MSRP” without disclosing the lowest discount available in the range, another violation of Illinois regulations[cite: 3080, 3081, 3082, 3165]. Kadric’s name appeared on this advertisement[cite: 3083].

Management Awareness

The complaint suggests management, including Defendant Hitko Kadric, General Manager for the two Illinois dealerships (Napleton’s Elmhurst Kia/Acura and Napleton’s Arlington Heights CDJR)[cite: 2973], was aware of these deceptive practices. Kadric received consumer complaints about employees packing add-on charges without consent but allegedly failed to correct the issues[cite: 3045]. The corporate customer retention manager reportedly wrote to Kadric about seeing “a small pattern with customers claiming they’re not given proper disclosures for products being added to the deal” at his dealerships[cite: 3046]. Kadric’s reported response was partly, “Tough times”[cite: 3046].

Taken together, these allegations describe a business model reliant on misleading consumers, burying unauthorized charges in complex paperwork, falsely claiming products are mandatory, and systematically discriminating against Black customers in financing—all allegedly contributing to over $70 million in improper charges[cite: 2996].

3. Regulatory Failures and Corporate Exploitation

The case against the Napleton Auto Group dealerships highlights potential weaknesses and exploitable aspects within the regulatory framework designed to protect consumers in complex financial transactions like auto purchases. While laws like the FTC Act[cite: 2944, 3087], the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)[cite: 2941, 3102], the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)[cite: 2943, 3114], and state-level statutes like the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act [cite: 2947, 3129] exist to prevent deceptive and discriminatory practices, the allegations suggest that Napleton dealerships found ways to operate within perceived gaps or exploit enforcement challenges for years before facing action.

Key Takeaway: The existence of consumer protection laws like TILA and ECOA is not enough; their effectiveness hinges on robust enforcement and the closure of loopholes that allow businesses to prioritize profit over fair dealing, as seen in the Napleton case where millions were allegedly extracted through deceptive add-ons and discriminatory pricing[cite: 2996, 3059].

The very nature of the car buying process, as described in the complaint, creates opportunities for exploitation that regulations struggle to fully mitigate preemptively. The process is often lengthy and exhausting, involving test drives, negotiation, and detailed financing discussions that can take hours[cite: 2986, 2987]. By the time consumers reach the final paperwork stage, they are often fatigued and confronted with a deluge of complex documents—sometimes over 60 pages requiring numerous signatures[cite: 2988, 2990]. Dealerships, as alleged in the Napleton case, can exploit this information asymmetry and procedural complexity by rushing consumers and burying unauthorized charges or misleading terms within the paperwork[cite: 2989, 2990, 2991]. While TILA and Regulation Z mandate certain disclosures [cite: 2941, 2945, 3103-3106], ensuring consumers actually understand these disclosures amidst a high-pressure, document-heavy closing process remains a challenge. The Napleton complaint suggests disclosures were sometimes simply not given properly, or given in a way that obscured the truth[cite: 3046].

Furthermore, the alleged practice of falsely claiming add-ons are mandatory [cite: 2993, 3019, 3021] exploits the consumer’s reliance on the dealer’s expertise and authority. Consumers may not know which products are genuinely required for purchase or financing, making them vulnerable to such misrepresentations. While regulations prohibit these deceptive acts[cite: 3087, 3091, 3129], proving a verbal misrepresentation occurred after the fact can be difficult, highlighting an enforcement challenge. The dealerships’ later admission in response to complaints that add-ons were not required [cite: 3038] underscores the alleged initial deception.

The discretionary financing policies that allegedly led to racial discrimination [cite: 3052, 3059] point to another area where regulatory oversight faces hurdles. ECOA explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race[cite: 3114, 3115]. However, allowing dealerships discretion in setting finance charge markups [cite: 3053] creates an environment where bias, conscious or unconscious, can translate into discriminatory pricing. Detecting such patterns often requires sophisticated statistical analysis of large datasets, as was evidently done by the FTC and Illinois AG[cite: 3060, 3062, 3063], which may not be feasible for individual consumers or occur until significant harm has accumulated. The complexity of Regulation B [cite: 2946] and ECOA enforcement mechanisms means that businesses might engage in discriminatory practices hoping they go undetected or are difficult to prove definitively without regulatory intervention.

The advertising violations alleged against the Arlington Heights dealershipfurther illustrate how specific rules, like those under TILA regarding credit advertising disclosures [cite: 3079, 3104] and Illinois regulations on coupons and price ranges [cite: 3071, 3081, 3163-3165], can be flouted. The use of prohibited coupon-like “gift cards” [cite: 3066, 3071] and the failure to disclose required terms when advertising a low down payment [cite: 3074, 3077] suggest either a disregard for existing regulations or a calculation that the benefits of the deceptive advertising outweigh the risk of enforcement.

While the eventual settlement [cite: 3187] demonstrates that regulatory bodies like the FTC and state Attorneys General can take action, the fact that these practices allegedly persisted for years, impacting potentially tens of thousands of consumers and generating over $70 million in improper charges[cite: 2996, 3060], suggests a lag in enforcement or structural difficulties in preempting such widespread misconduct. The system relies heavily on detecting patterns after the fact or responding to consumer complaints[cite: 2999, 3045, 3046], leaving room for considerable consumer harm before intervention occurs. The Napleton case thus exemplifies how determined corporate actors can navigate or ignore regulatory landscapes, exploiting complexity and consumer vulnerability until caught.

4. Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Driving Force

At its heart, the conduct alleged in the FTC and Illinois Attorney General’s complaint against the Napleton Auto Group points to a driving force common in many corporate misconduct cases operating within a neoliberal capitalist framework: the relentless pursuit of profit maximization, potentially at the expense of ethical conduct and legal compliance. The specific tactics detailed in the complaint—deceptive add-on charges and discriminatory financing markups—appear tailored to directly enhance dealership revenue and profitability.

The sale of add-on products is explicitly identified as a significant source of dealership profit[cite: 2950]. By allegedly tacking on charges for these products without consumers’ informed consent [cite: 2991, 3098] or falsely claiming they were mandatory[cite: 2993, 3019], the Napleton dealerships could substantially increase the revenue generated from each vehicle sale. These weren’t minor fees; add-on charges frequently amounted to hundreds or thousands of dollars per transaction[cite: 2992, 2996], with add-on packages ranging from $1,395 to $2,495! The sheer scale alleged—over $70 million generated from such practices since 2017 [cite: 2996]—underscores the significant financial incentive behind these tactics. Hiding these charges within complex paperwork or rolling them into financing serves to obscure the true cost from the consumer, facilitating the profit extraction[cite: 2990, 2992]. Even telling consumers add-ons were “free” while actually charging for them [cite: 3006, 3010] points to a deliberate strategy to inflate the final price paid by the customer.

Similarly, the alleged discriminatory financing practices appear motivated by profit. The dealerships implemented a discretionary policy allowing sales personnel to mark up the interest rate (the “buy rate”) offered by third-party finance companies[cite: 3052, 3053]. This markup was not related to the consumer’s credit risk [cite: 3054] but represented additional profit for the dealership, as the finance entity compensated the dealership from the increased interest revenue generated by the markup[cite: 3056]. The policy even allowed staff to steer consumers towards lenders permitting higher markups, further maximizing potential profit[cite: 3057].

The alleged racial disparity in these markups—charging Black borrowers approximately $190 more in interest on average than similarly situated non-Latino White consumers [cite: 3060]—suggests that discrimination itself was potentially wielded as a profit-enhancing tool. By systematically charging a specific demographic group higher rates, the dealerships could extract additional revenue. Black consumers also allegedly paid $99 more on average for similar add-on packages[cite: 3062], adding another layer to the discriminatory profit strategy. These practices, deemed statistically significant and not explainable by credit risk factors[cite: 3063], directly contradict the principles of fair lending under ECOA [cite: 3114, 3115] but align with a model focused purely on maximizing revenue from every transaction, regardless of legality or fairness.

The alleged common enterprise structure of the Napleton Auto Group, involving multiple dealerships across several states operating under shared policies and potentially common management influence[cite: 2976, 2977], facilitates the implementation and scaling of such profit-driven strategies. When deceptive or discriminatory practices are embedded within corporate policy or tolerated by management (as suggested by General Manager Kadric’s alleged awareness and inaction regarding undisclosed add-ons [cite: 3045, 3046]), they become systemic rather than isolated incidents. The internal training document acknowledging “Non-disclosed packages” as a common complaint [cite: 2999] further hints at an environment where these profit-generating, albeit problematic, practices were known.

The entire apparatus described in the complaint—from bait-and-switch advertising [cite: 2983, 2984, 3022, 3023] and high-pressure, confusing closing processes [cite: 2988, 2990] to unauthorized fees [cite: 2991] and discriminatory markups [cite: 3053, 3059]—can be viewed as serving the ultimate goal of maximizing profit per customer. While businesses are expected to pursue profit, the allegations suggest Napleton dealerships crossed legal and ethical lines, prioritizing financial gain over honest dealing and fair treatment, particularly for minority customers. The $70 million figure [cite: 2996] represents not just illicit charges, but the tangible outcome of a system allegedly geared towards profit maximization above all else.

5. The Economic Fallout: Consumers Foot the Bill

The alleged corporate misconduct by the Napleton Auto Group dealerships had significant and direct economic consequences for consumers, contributing to individual financial hardship and potentially broader economic instability. The primary fallout detailed in the legal documents is the direct monetary loss suffered by customers due to deceptive add-on charges and discriminatory financing practices[cite: 3166].

Consumers were allegedly charged hundreds, and often thousands, of dollars each for unwanted or unauthorized add-on products[cite: 2992, 2996, 3042]. Specific examples highlight the scale: add-on packages costing from $1,395 to $2,495 were falsely presented as mandatory[cite: 3043, 3023]; one customer’s $4,000 down payment was effectively nullified by unauthorized charges of a similar amount[cite: 3000, 3001]; another was charged nearly $4,000 for an extended warranty they had tried to decline, plus hundreds more for other undisclosed items[cite: 3010]. These unexpected costs represent a direct financial injury, forcing consumers to pay significantly more for their vehicles than they had agreed to or budgeted for.

Compounding this was the difficulty in obtaining refunds. The complaint notes that many consumers were unable to get their money back, or received only partial refunds, even when the charges were clearly unauthorized[cite: 3044]. This leaves the financial burden squarely on the consumer, who must absorb the cost of the dealership’s alleged deception.

The economic harm was allegedly amplified for Black consumers due to discriminatory financing practices[cite: 3059]. By marking up interest rates based on discretion rather than credit risk[cite: 3052, 3053, 3054], Napleton dealerships charged Black borrowers, on average, approximately $190 more in total interest over the life of their loans compared to similarly situated non-Latino White consumers[cite: 3060]. Black consumers also paid, on average, $99 more for similar add-on packages[cite: 3062]. This represents a direct wealth transfer based on race, exacerbating existing economic disparities and making vehicle ownership disproportionately more expensive for Black customers. These discriminatory costs, applied across potentially tens of thousands of transactions[cite: 3060], represent a substantial economic drain on the affected community.

The aggregate figures cited in the complaint underscore the scale of the economic fallout. Napleton dealerships allegedly charged consumers over $70 million for unauthorized and unwanted add-ons since 2017[cite: 2996]. This vast sum, extracted through allegedly deceptive means, represents a significant loss for consumers and an illicit gain for the corporation. While the settlement requires Napleton to pay $10 million[cite: 3286], with $9.95 million potentially available for consumer redress[cite: 3287, 3296], this amount is only a fraction of the total alleged harm, suggesting many consumers may not be fully compensated for their losses.

Beyond the direct financial costs, such practices can have broader economic repercussions. Consumers burdened by unexpected debt may struggle to meet other financial obligations, potentially impacting their credit scores and future access to credit. Widespread deceptive practices undermine consumer trust in the marketplace, potentially leading consumers to avoid necessary purchases or engage in overly cautious behavior that can dampen economic activity. Discriminatory practices, in particular, perpetuate systemic economic inequality, hindering wealth building and financial stability within minority communities. The need for regulatory action by the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General [cite: 2940] also represents a public cost, diverting resources to investigate and prosecute misconduct that could otherwise be used elsewhere.

Ultimately, the economic fallout described in the Napleton case lands squarely on the shoulders of consumers, who were allegedly forced to pay millions in illegitimate charges, faced discriminatory pricing, and encountered difficulty obtaining refunds, all while the corporation potentially profited from these practices[cite: 2996, 3166].

6. Environmental & Public Health Risks: An Unseen Dimension

The legal documents provided (FTC and Illinois AG v. Napleton Auto Group, Complaint and Stipulated Order) focus specifically on allegations of economic misconduct, namely deceptive sales practices related to add-on products and discriminatory financing in the context of auto sales [cite: 2949-2954, 3047-3064]. The core violations cited pertain to the FTC Act (unfair or deceptive practices)[cite: 3087], the Truth in Lending Act (disclosure requirements)[cite: 3102], the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (discrimination)[cite: 3114], and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act[cite: 3129].

Consequently, these sources do not contain information or make allegations regarding environmental harms, pollution, or direct public health threats stemming from the Napleton Auto Group’s business practices. While broader discussions of corporate responsibility often encompass environmental impact and public health, the specific facts and claims detailed in this particular case, as documented in the provided legal complaint and settlement, are confined to financial and discriminatory harms inflicted upon consumers. Therefore, an analysis of environmental or public health risks related to Napleton Auto Group cannot be substantiated based solely on the provided source material.

7. Exploitation of Workers: The Human Cost Within

The joint Complaint and the subsequent Stipulated Order between the FTC, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Napleton Auto Group defendants concentrate overwhelmingly on the harm inflicted upon consumers. The documents detail allegations of deceptive charges[cite: 2991, 3019], misrepresentations[cite: 3091, 3095], and discriminatory financing practices targeting customers, particularly Black borrowers[cite: 3126].

However, the provided legal sources do not delve into the internal labor practices of the Napleton dealerships or the treatment of their employees. There are no specific allegations or findings within these documents concerning worker mistreatment, unsafe working conditions, wage theft, or anti-union activities connected to this case.

The complaint does mention that Corporate Defendants maintained a discretionary policy allowing sales personnel to mark up interest rates and add charges for add-on products[cite: 3052, 2953]. While such discretionary policies could potentially create high-pressure sales environments or incentivize employees to engage in the alleged misconduct to meet targets or earn commissions, the source documents themselves do not explicitly describe or analyze the working conditions or pressures faced by Napleton employees. The focus remains firmly on the external impact on consumers.

Therefore, based solely on the information contained within the Napleton Auto Joint Complaint and Stipulated Order, an analysis of the exploitation of workers within the company cannot be provided.

8. Community Impact: Targeting Vulnerability

The alleged practices of the Napleton Auto Group dealerships, as outlined in the FTC and Illinois AG complaint, inflicted harm not just on individual consumers, but on the broader communities they served, particularly by exploiting vulnerabilities and allegedly engaging in racial discrimination[cite: 3059, 3126]. Operating across multiple states—Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Missouri—the dealerships’ conduct had the potential for widespread community impact.

The most profound community-level impact detailed in the complaint stems from the alleged discriminatory financing practices against Black consumers[cite: 3059, 3126]. By systematically charging Black borrowers higher interest rate markups (averaging $190 more in interest) and higher average costs for add-on packages ($99 more) than similarly situated non-Latino White customers[cite: 3060, 3062], the dealerships allegedly contributed directly to racial economic inequality within the communities where they operated. This wasn’t isolated; the complaint states this pattern existed “at least since 2017” and was observed across “tens of thousands of consumers” who financed vehicles through the Corporate Defendants[cite: 3059, 3060]. Such practices extract wealth from a specific demographic group, reinforcing historical disadvantages and making essential purchases like transportation less affordable. This systemic bias undermines economic fairness and social cohesion within the community.

Furthermore, the alleged deceptive practices related to add-on charges impacted a wide swath of the consumer community. The complaint references a survey indicating that “at least 83% of [Napleton’s] customers were charged for add-on products without authorization or as a result of deception”[cite: 2995]. This suggests that the vast majority of individuals interacting with these dealerships may have been subjected to misleading or unfair sales tactics, eroding trust between the business and the community it serves. When consumers feel cheated or misled, particularly regarding significant purchases like vehicles, it damages the reputation of the specific business and can foster cynicism about the marketplace in general.

The complaint describes consumers driving hours based on advertised prices[cite: 2985, 3022], only to be confronted with mandatory, high-cost add-on packages [cite: 3023] or unauthorized charges[cite: 3001]. This wastes consumers’ time and resources and creates significant frustration and anger, negatively impacting their perception of local businesses. The difficulty many consumers faced in obtaining refunds[cite: 3044], even for unauthorized charges, further exacerbates the negative community impact, leaving individuals feeling powerless and reinforcing the sense that large corporations can operate with impunity.

The specific advertising violations alleged against the Arlington Heights, Illinois dealership, such as using prohibited coupon-like offers [cite: 3071, 3159] and failing to provide legally required credit disclosures[cite: 3074, 3079], also harm the community by creating an uneven playing field for competing dealerships that follow the rules [cite: 3084] and by misleading local consumers about the true cost and terms of advertised offers.

While the settlement imposes a $10 million payment[cite: 3286], partly intended for consumer redress[cite: 3296], and mandates changes like a Fair Lending Program[cite: 3266], the alleged damage to community trust and the economic harm caused by years of deceptive and discriminatory practices, totaling over $70 million in improper charges[cite: 2996], represent significant burdens on the affected communities served by these dealerships.

9. The PR Machine: Managing the Narrative

The provided legal documents—the Complaint and the Stipulated Order—focus primarily on the allegations against the Napleton Auto Group and the terms of the resulting settlement, rather than detailing the company’s public relations strategy or specific spin tactics in response to the investigation and lawsuit. However, certain elements within the documents offer limited insights into how corporations might handle such situations internally and legally.

A common strategy in corporate settlements is to resolve the legal action without admitting guilt for the alleged misconduct. The Napleton Stipulated Order explicitly states, “Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. Only for purposes of this action, Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction”[cite: 3202]. This allows the company to end the litigation and associated negative publicity without formally conceding wrongdoing, which can be crucial for managing public perception and potentially limiting liability in other related suits.

The documents also provide a glimpse into internal reactions that contradict a carefully managed external image. The complaint alleges that when the corporate customer retention manager alerted General Manager Hitko Kadric to a “small pattern with customers claiming they’re not given proper disclosures for products being added to the deal” at the dealerships he oversaw, Kadric’s partial response was simply, “Tough times”[cite: 3046]. While an internal communication rather than public spin, this alleged remark suggests a potential internal culture dismissive of consumer protection concerns, contrasting sharply with the compliant image corporations typically project.

Furthermore, the complaint notes that in response to consumer complaints filed with third parties (like consumer protection agencies or the Better Business Bureau), Napleton dealerships sometimes made admissions that contradicted their sales floor practices, such as admitting add-ons were not required, even though consumers were allegedly told otherwise during the sales process[cite: 3038]. This suggests a potential strategy of denying or obfuscating during the initial transaction but offering different explanations when facing formal complaints.

While the sources don’t mention specific Napleton press releases, lobbying efforts, or “greenwashing” tactics (presenting a misleadingly positive public image), the standard corporate playbook in such situations often involves minimizing the scope of the problem, highlighting remedial actions taken (like the Fair Lending Program mandated by the settlement [cite: 3266]), and emphasizing cooperation with regulators, even while formally denying the core allegations[cite: 3202]. The settlement itself, resulting in a $10 million payment [cite: 3286] and significant injunctive relief, indicates the seriousness of the allegations brought by the FTC and Illinois AG, regardless of the lack of a formal admission of guilt in the final order.

10. Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: The Napleton Case

The allegations against the Napleton Auto Group serve as a microcosm of how corporate practices, particularly those alleged to be deceptive or discriminatory, can exacerbate wealth disparity and reflect broader issues of corporate greed within the economic system. The core of the complaint filed by the FTC and Illinois Attorney General points to strategies seemingly designed to maximize corporate profits by systematically extracting wealth from consumers, with a disproportionate impact on already marginalized groups [cite: 2949-2954, 3059-3064].

The alleged scheme involving deceptive and unauthorized add-on charges, which reportedly netted the dealerships over $70 million since 2017[cite: 2996], represents a direct transfer of wealth from consumers to the corporation. By tacking on hundreds or thousands of dollars in unwanted fees [cite: 2992, 2996, 3042]—often using confusing paperwork and high-pressure tactics—the dealerships allegedly prioritized increased revenue over fair dealing. This practice hits lower-income consumers harder, as unexpected charges constitute a larger portion of their budget and can lead to greater financial distress.

More fucked up tho, the discriminatory financing practices targeting Black consumers directly contribute to racial wealth gaps[cite: 3059, 3126]. Charging Black borrowers significantly higher interest rate markups (averaging $190 more) and higher average prices for add-on packages ($99 more) compared to similarly situated non-Latino White customers [cite: 3060, 3062] is a clear example of how corporate practices can perpetuate systemic inequality. This alleged discrimination, based on race rather than creditworthiness[cite: 3063], allowed the corporation to extract additional profit specifically from Black customers, undermining their ability to build wealth and achieve financial stability. This aligns with broader patterns where marginalized communities face higher costs for essential goods and services, including transportation.

The pursuit of profit through these alleged means reflects a potential prioritization of shareholder value or corporate revenue streams over ethical considerations and consumer welfare—a hallmark critique often leveled against corporate behavior under neoliberal capitalism. The discretionary policies allowing markups [cite: 3052] and the alleged pressure or lack of oversight enabling deceptive add-on sales [cite: 3045, 3046] can be seen as systemic choices that facilitate profit extraction, even if through illegal means. The sheer scale of the alleged misconduct across multiple dealerships in several states, operating as a common enterprise[cite: 2976], suggests a potentially ingrained corporate culture focused heavily on maximizing revenue per transaction.

While the $10 million settlement [cite: 3286] provides some measure of accountability and potential redress[cite: 3296], it pales in comparison to the $70 million allegedly taken from consumers[cite: 2996]. This disparity raises questions about whether such penalties are sufficient to deter future misconduct or adequately address the wealth extracted through such alleged greed-driven practices. The Napleton case thus illustrates how specific corporate actions, motivated by profit, can have tangible consequences that widen economic divides and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities.

11. Global Parallels: A Familiar Story of Predation

While the legal documents provided focus exclusively on the specific allegations against the Ed Napleton Automotive Group within the United States[cite: 2940], the patterns of alleged misconduct—deceptive sales practices, hidden fees, and discriminatory treatment—resonate with consumer protection issues observed globally across various industries. The Napleton case serves as a domestic example of broader challenges inherent in consumer markets operating under economic systems that prioritize profit, often leading to exploitation where regulation or enforcement is weak.

Practices like charging for unsolicited or deceptively marketed add-on services [cite: 2991, 3006, 3019] are not unique to US auto dealers. Consumers worldwide face similar issues in sectors ranging from telecommunications and financial services to travel and retail, where complex contracts, fine print, and aggressive sales tactics are used to inflate final costs. The information asymmetry between large corporations and individual consumers, exploited in the Napleton case through lengthy paperwork and rushed closings, is a universal challenge.

Similarly, discriminatory pricing or lending practices, while illegal under laws like ECOA in the US[cite: 3114], unfortunately persist in various forms globally, often targeting marginalized or vulnerable populations based on race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. The use of discretionary policies, like the financing markups alleged against Napleton[cite: 3052, 3053], can provide cover for biased outcomes in many different cultural and economic contexts. Whether it’s higher interest rates, less favorable loan terms, or targeted predatory products, the pattern of exploiting existing societal inequalities for profit is a recurring theme in critiques of global capitalism.

The regulatory challenges highlighted by the Napleton case—the lag between misconduct and enforcement, the difficulty in proving certain deceptive practices, and questions about the sufficiency of penalties [cite: 3187]—are also mirrored internationally. Consumer protection agencies worldwide grapple with policing complex markets, keeping pace with evolving business practices, and ensuring that penalties effectively deter future wrongdoing by powerful corporate actors. The settlement structure itself, where Napleton did not admit to the core allegations[cite: 3202], is a common feature of corporate legal resolutions globally.

Therefore, while the specific facts are confined to Napleton Auto Group and its US operations, the underlying dynamics—corporate pursuit of profit leading to consumer harm, the exploitation of information asymmetry and consumer vulnerability, discriminatory practices exacerbating inequality, and the ongoing struggle for effective regulation and accountability—reflect systemic issues present in market economies around the world. The Napleton case, grounded in the details provided by the FTC and Illinois AG[cite: 2940], offers a concrete lens through which to view these broader, often global, patterns of corporate behavior and consumer predation.

12. Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: A Slap on the Wrist?

The settlement reached between the FTC, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Napleton defendants raises critical questions about the effectiveness of corporate accountability mechanisms in deterring misconduct and fully compensating victims[cite: 3187]. While the stipulated order imposes financial penalties and requires significant changes to business practices, its adequacy can be debated, particularly when viewed against the scale and nature of the alleged wrongdoing.

The centerpiece of the settlement is a $10 million monetary judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally[cite: 3286]. Of this, $9.95 million is designated for potential consumer redress, administered by the FTC[cite: 3287, 3296], and $50,000 is a voluntary contribution to the Illinois Attorney General’s compliance fund[cite: 3301]. However, this $10 million figure stands in deep contrast to the over $70 million consumers were allegedly charged for unauthorized add-ons alone since 2017[cite: 2996]. This disparity immediately raises concerns about whether the financial penalty constitutes a genuine deterrent or merely a cost of doing business, especially considering the potential profits generated over years of alleged misconduct. If the illicit gains significantly outweigh the penalty, the economic incentive for similar behavior in the future remains.

Furthermore, the settlement allows the defendants to resolve the case without admitting to the core allegations of deception and discrimination detailed in the complaint[cite: 3202]. They admit only the facts necessary for jurisdiction[cite: 3203]. This “neither admit nor deny” clause is standard in many settlements but arguably weakens accountability. It allows the corporation to avoid a formal finding of guilt, which can be beneficial for public relations and potentially shield it from certain consequences in other legal contexts, even though the factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true for enforcement purposes related to the settlement itself[cite: 3291].

The order does impose significant injunctive relief, permanently restraining the defendants from misrepresenting costs, fees, or whether products are optional [cite: 3235, 3242] and requiring Express, Informed Consent for all charges[cite: 3238, 3240]. Specific prohibitions address the advertising violations under Illinois lawand TILA disclosure failures. Crucially, it mandates the implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive Fair Lending Program designed to prevent discrimination[cite: 3266]. This program includes designating a compliance officer[cite: 3268], regular employee training[cite: 3269], implementing objective guidelines for fees[cite: 3271], and strictly limiting discretionary interest rate markups (limiting any markup above the “Buy Rate” to a pre-set standard, not exceeding 185 basis points, with specific, documented exceptions). The order also requires compliance reporting [cite: 3317] and extensive recordkeeping for 10 years[cite: 3337, 3338].

Key Takeaway: While the Napleton settlement mandates operational changes like a Fair Lending Program[cite: 3266], the $10 million penalty represents only a fraction of the over $70 million consumers were allegedly improperly charged[cite: 2996], raising questions about whether such settlements truly hold corporations accountable or merely treat misconduct as a cost of doing business.

While these injunctive measures aim to prevent future violations, their effectiveness depends on rigorous monitoring and enforcement by the FTC and Illinois AG. The history alleged in the complaint—years of misconduct generating millions in improper charges—suggests that proactive enforcement can be challenging. Settlements, while providing quicker relief than protracted litigation, can sometimes be perceived as insufficient punishment for widespread, systemic harm, especially when the financial penalty is dwarfed by the alleged illicit gains and no admission of wrongdoing is required[cite: 3202]. The Napleton case exemplifies this tension in the corporate accountability landscape.

13. Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

The Napleton Auto Group case, grounded in violations of existing consumer protection laws like the FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, highlights several areas where reforms could strengthen safeguards against deceptive and discriminatory practices in auto sales and financing.

  1. Strengthening Disclosure Requirements: While TILA and Regulation Z mandate disclosures, the Napleton case suggests these can be ineffective if presented unclearly, rushed, or buried in complex paperwork [cite: 2988-2990, 3046]. Reforms could mandate simpler, standardized disclosure forms for add-on products and financing terms, presented separately before the final closing documents. Requiring explicit, standalone signatures or digital confirmations for each optional add-on product, clearly stating its cost and optional nature, could combat the alleged practice of sneaking in unwanted charges[cite: 2991, 3098]. The settlement’s requirement for “Express, Informed Consent” [cite: 3231, 3240] provides a model that could be legislated more broadly.
  2. Eliminating or Strictly Limiting Discretionary Financing Markups: The alleged discriminatory outcomes stemming from Napleton’s discretionary markup policy [cite: 3052, 3059, 3060] underscore the risks of such systems. Reforms could prohibit dealerships from marking up the lender’s “buy rate” altogether, requiring them to offer financing at the rate determined by the lender based on the consumer’s objective creditworthiness. Alternatively, regulations could adopt the approach mandated in the Napleton settlement nationwide: strictly limiting any markup to a pre-set, non-discriminatory standard amount or percentage (like the 185 basis points cap) with rigorous documentation required for any exceptions[cite: 3274, 3279, 3280]. This would directly address the mechanism allegedly used to discriminate against Black borrowers.
  3. Enhancing Enforcement and Penalties: The $10 million settlement compared to the $70 million in alleged harm [cite: 3286, 2996] suggests penalties may not be sufficient deterrents. Reforms could increase statutory maximum penalties for violations of consumer protection laws, particularly for systemic misconduct affecting vulnerable groups. Providing agencies like the FTC and state Attorneys General with greater resources for proactive investigation and enforcement, including market-wide testing for discrimination, could help detect and stop violations sooner. The settlement mandates compliance reporting and monitoring for Napleton[cite: 3317, 3346]; making such oversight standard practice for large auto groups could be beneficial.
  4. Banning Deceptive Advertising Practices: The specific advertising violations alleged, like prohibited coupons [cite: 3071, 3159] and misleading “up to” discounts[cite: 3080], should be vigorously enforced. Regulations could further clarify rules around bait-and-switch tactics where advertised prices are unattainable due to forced add-ons[cite: 2983, 3023].
  5. Mandating Fair Lending Programs: The Fair Lending Program required by the Napleton settlement—including a designated compliance officer, regular training, objective fee guidelines, and prompt handling of discrimination complaints—could serve as a model mandated for all large auto dealership groups, shifting compliance from a reactive measure after violations are found to a proactive requirement.
  6. Empowering Consumer Advocacy: Consumers need clear channels to report misconduct and accessible avenues for redress. Supporting non-profit consumer advocacy groups and legal aid services can help individuals challenge unfair practices. Public awareness campaigns educating consumers about common dealership tactics (like add-on padding and financing markups) and their rights under laws like TILA and ECOA are crucial. The settlement requires Napleton to maintain records of consumer complaints[cite: 3342]; standardized public reporting of complaint data could increase transparency.

Implementing reforms like these could help close the loopholes allegedly exploited by Napleton, making the auto buying and financing process fairer and more transparent for all consumers.

14. Conclusion: Systemic Corruption Laid Bare

The case of the Ed Napleton Automotive Group, as documented by the Federal Trade Commission and the Illinois Attorney General, is more than just a story of one company’s alleged misdeeds. It is a striking indictment of systemic vulnerabilities within consumer markets that allow deceptive practices and discrimination to flourish, often at the expense of the most vulnerable. The allegations—padding contracts with over $70 million in unwanted “add-on” charges[cite: 2996], misleading consumers about mandatory fees[cite: 3019], and systematically charging Black customers higher financing costs—paint a picture not merely of isolated errors, but of potentially calculated strategies driven by profit maximization[cite: 2950, 3053, 3056].

Key Takeaway: The Napleton Auto Group settlement, while imposing a $10 million penalty and operational reforms[cite: 3286, 3266], exposes how easily complex transactions and discretionary policies can be manipulated to deceive consumers and perpetuate racial economic disparities, demanding stronger regulations and vigilant enforcement.

The human cost is undeniable: consumers lured by false promises[cite: 2983], trapped for hours in dealerships[cite: 2986], rushed through confusing paperwork[cite: 2990], and emerging with unexpected debt[cite: 3001, 3010, 3042]. Black consumers faced the additional injustice of allegedly paying more simply because of their race[cite: 3060, 3062], a practice that directly undermines economic fairness and perpetuates inequality. The dismissive internal response attributed to management—”Tough times” [cite: 3046]—when confronted with evidence of improper disclosures only underscores the potential cultural issues at play.

While the settlement brings financial penalties and mandates reforms like a Fair Lending Program [cite: 3266] and stricter rules around add-on consent[cite: 3240], the fact that such widespread misconduct allegedly persisted for years highlights gaps in proactive oversight and the challenges regulators face. The Napleton case stands as a potent reminder that consumer protection laws, while essential, are only as strong as their enforcement and their ability to adapt to corporate tactics designed to circumvent them. It lays bare the potential for corruption within systems where profit motives can overshadow ethical and legal obligations, demanding not just corporate accountability, but systemic reforms to ensure a marketplace that is truly fair and equitable for all.

15. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

Based on the detailed contents of the Joint Complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the People of the State of Illinois [cite: 2940] and the subsequent comprehensive Stipulated Order[cite: 3187], it is highly likely that the lawsuit against the Napleton Auto Group defendants was based on real, significant harms and represented serious, well-founded allegations rather than being a frivolous action. Several factors support this conclusion: the lawsuit was initiated by two major government enforcement agencies (the FTC and a State Attorney General) known for pursuing substantial cases of consumer protection violations[cite: 2940]; the complaint outlines specific, detailed allegations of deceptive practices (like unauthorized add-on charges [cite: 2991] and misrepresentations about mandatory products [cite: 3019]) and discriminatory conduct (higher financing charges for Black consumers [cite: 3059, 3060]), citing multiple federal and state laws allegedly violated (FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act); the complaint references specific consumer examples (though anonymized) [cite: 3000-3002, 3006-3011], quantitative data (like the 83% survey result, the $70 million in improper charges, and the average discriminatory markups [cite: 3060, 3062]), and even internal communications/documents suggesting awareness of the problems[cite: 2999, 3046]; finally, the outcome involved a substantial $10 million monetary judgment [cite: 3286] and extensive, detailed injunctive relief, including the mandated creation of a Fair Lending Program, which indicates the seriousness with which the regulators and the court viewed the allegations and the need for corrective action. Frivolous lawsuits typically lack such detailed evidence, regulatory backing, and significant settlement terms.

Napleton Auto Stipulated OrderDownload
Napleton Auto Joint ComplaintDownload

You can read about the lawsuit between the FTC and Napoleon Automotive by visiting the FTC’s website: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/04/ftc-takes-action-against-multistate-auto-dealer-napleton-sneaking-illegal-junk-fees-bills

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

  1. The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
  2. Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
  3. The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
  4. My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....

Evil Corporations
Evil Corporations

Articles written by me are actually written by many different people! We include writers from the legal field, tech, and people who study political theory. Especially people who study political theory.... that makes up about 90% of the guest writers here. If you also want to contribute to this website, then head on over to the Evil Corporations contact page and send over your interest!

Articles: 727