Did Passport Auto rip you off when you bought a car?

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been on a tear recently, going after car dealerships (many of whom are owned by groups) for charging customers bogus fees. The latest is Passport Automotive Group, which has many dealerships in the DC beltway region. Unfortunately, all the FTC does is require them to pay some money back to affected customers. There are rarely punitive fines against the companies, which might discourage future bad behavior. Passport was also charged with "deceptive advertising charges" in 2018 (they mass mailed fake recall notices to customers in an attempt to increase business for their service departments):



Here's the current press release:

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against auto dealer Passport Automotive Group for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds to thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers with higher financing costs and fees. Passport, its president, Everett Hellmuth, and its vice president, Jay Klein, will pay more than $3.3 million to settle the FTC’s lawsuit, which will be used to refund consumers harmed by Passport’s conduct.

“With this action against Passport and its top executives, the Commission is continuing its crackdown on junk fees and discriminatory practices that harm Black and Latino consumers,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “As families struggle with rising prices, companies that think they can hit consumers with hidden fees should think again.”

Passport, based in Maryland, owns car dealerships around the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. In 2018, the FTC brought action against Passport, its president, and vice president, alleging the company mailed more than 21,000 fake “urgent recall” notices to consumers in 2015 and 2017, to lure them to visit dealerships.

In its complaint announced today, the FTC alleges that Passport regularly advertises certified, reconditioned, or inspected cars at specific prices, but then adds extra certification, reconditioning, or inspection fees that it falsely claims consumers are required to pay. The FTC also alleges that Passport charges Black and Latino consumers hundreds of dollars more in financing costs and fees, on average, than white consumers. In its complaint against Passport, the FTC alleges that the company has for years violated the FTC Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by:

  • Charging illegal junk fees: Passport advertises cars as “certified,” “inspected,” or “reconditioned” at specific prices, but the FTC alleges that when customers try to pay the amount advertised for those vehicles, Passport adds hundreds or thousands of dollars in fees. These fees either increase the price over what was advertised or negate any discounts the consumers negotiated. The complaint cites one case in which a vehicle advertised for $24,050 was in fact sold for $26,440 due to illegal add-on fees. Passport frequently describes the extra fees it charges to customers for inspection, reconditioning, or certification as required when in many instances, auto manufacturers specifically prohibit dealers from charging separately for certification costs.
  • Discriminating against Black and Latino customers: The complaint alleges that Passport regularly charges Black and Latino customers more in financing costs and fees than they charge non-Latino white customers. Although Passport claimed that it had a policy to prevent discrimination, the complaint alleges that Passport did not even enforce or monitor the policy.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Black and Latino consumers paid on average about $291 and $235, respectively, more in interest than non-Latino white consumers did. It also alleges that Black and Latino consumers paid on average an extra fee 24 percent and 42 percent more often, respectively, than non-Latino White consumers.

Enforcement Action

Passport, its president, and its vice president have agreed to a proposed federal court order that would:

  • Prohibit them from charging different groups different markups: The order would require Passport to establish a fair lending program to ensure it does not discriminate going forward, including a provision that will require each Passport dealership location to either charge no financing markup or charge the same markup rate to all consumers.
  • Prohibit them from deceiving consumers about prices and fees: The order would prohibit Passport from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. It would also require them to only charge consumers fees with their express, informed consent.
  • Require them to pay money to refund consumers: The order would require Passport to pay the FTC $3.38 million to refund consumers harmed by Passport’s unlawful actions.
The FTC has taken significant action to protect consumers across the automotive marketplace in recent years, most recently by announcing a proposed rule that would ban many of the junk add-on fees and bait-and-switch tactics plaguing car buyers. In the last ten years alone, the FTC has brought more than 50 law enforcement actions related to automobiles and helped lead two nationwide law enforcement sweeps that included 181 state-level enforcement actions in these areas.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 4-1. Then-Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips voted no on the motion to authorize staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order before he left the Commission. Chair Lina M. Khan, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya issued a majority statement. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson issued a statement. Commissioner Phillips issued a dissenting statement. The complaint and stipulated final order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
While the FTC can't suspend the business license of a company the State of Maryland can, which may be what ends up happening. The FTC action might just be the first hit. The Attorney General can go after them (if he's not too busy suing Trump, trying to ban guns and imposing a $1/per shell tax on ammunition).
 

spr1975wshs

Mostly settled in...
Ad Free Experience
Patron
I've read that states are going after Carvana for bad business practices. Both Illinois and Michigan have suspended their business license.
 

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
While the FTC can't suspend the business license of a company the State of Maryland can, which may be what ends up happening. The FTC action might just be the first hit. The Attorney General can go after them (if he's not too busy suing Trump, trying to ban guns and imposing a $1/per shell tax on ammunition).
The Maryland AG recently had a similar settlement with another dealer group (I believe I posted the PR somewhere in here). Anyway, it was the same basic deal; pay back the customers you ripped off, but no penalties or fines or other sanctions. Just the cost of doing business for these big companies.
 

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
I've read that states are going after Carvana for bad business practices. Both Illinois and Michigan have suspended their business license.
I recently heard one report saying that Carvana has only ever had one profitable quarter (or was it year?). Aren't the current Carvana problems due to the fact they seem unable to deliver titles to the new owners in quite a few cases?
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
  • Discriminating against Black and Latino customers: The complaint alleges that Passport regularly charges Black and Latino customers more in financing costs and fees than they charge non-Latino white customers. Although Passport claimed that it had a policy to prevent discrimination, the complaint alleges that Passport did not even enforce or monitor the policy.

I would like to see if this one isn't actually related to credit rating. Oh, it's RACIST to charge customers who default on their loans more interest!
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Have heard that Fitgerald has sold a few cars without a title.
That's not the sort of thing I would post on a public forum without evidence to back it up.
NO, I'm not asking to see it, but just concerned for you and the site
We live in an over litigious society
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

That's not the sort of thing I would post on a public forum without evidence to back it up.
NO, I'm not asking to see it, but just concerned for you and the site
We live in an over litigious society

Pretty sure he stated an opinion from a hearsay conversation. With no intention of libel.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
My dad bought a car one time, got a really good deal on it. Turned out the lot could sell them so cheap because they weren't paying off the liens on the cars people traded in. He bought it and the battery died immediately, they sent him to the tire place down the road with a voucher for a brand new Interstate battery. Always wondered how this used car lot could have a free picnic every weekend.
 

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
they weren't paying off the liens on the cars people traded in

Quite a few reports of this type of thing out there. The problem is that the car is still legally owned by the lien holder, unless a judge rules otherwise for whatever reason. Further complicates the situation if the buyer also took out a loan on it. In one of the cases I heard about, the dealer went out of business, so no one to sue or give the buyer/bank their money back. I believe in this case, the car essentially became a lawn ornament since it could not be titled or sold. I don't think you can even scrap them w/o a valid title (the bank with the original lien refusing to let it go).

I think this was one of Steve Lehto's many fascinating stories.
 
Last edited:

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Quite a few reports of this type of thing out there. The problem is that the car is still legally owned by the lien holder, unless a judge rules otherwise for whatever reason. Further complicates the situation if the buyer also took out a loan on it. In one of the cases I heard about, the dealer went out of business, so no one to sue or give the buyer/bank their money back. I believe in this case, the car essentially became a lawn ornament since it could not be titled or sold. I don't think you can even scrap them w/o a valid title (the bank with the original lien refusing to let it go).
Hmm in that case I would park it where it would accrue tickets, be towed etc so the title owner would get them.

I know someone who sold a car to someone from Washington DC that never ended up titling the car, five years later he got a call from the DC police that his car was involved in a crime and to come in for questioning.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Hmm in that case I would park it where it would accrue tickets, be towed etc so the title owner would get them.

I know someone who sold a car to someone from Washington DC that never ended up titling the car, five years later he got a call from the DC police that his car was involved in a crime and to come in for questioning.
This happened to me about 25 years ago. Back before they neutered the tax write-off for donated vehicles I used to donate rather than sell or trade-in when I would get a new car. About 1 month after I donated a car I got a visit from the police telling me the car, still registered to me, was used in a gas station robbery. Fortunately I took a picture of the title after I signed it over and I very very much didn't match the description of the perpetrator.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
My dad bought a car one time, got a really good deal on it. Turned out the lot could sell them so cheap because they weren't paying off the liens on the cars people traded in. He bought it and the battery died immediately, they sent him to the tire place down the road with a voucher for a brand new Interstate battery. Always wondered how this used car lot could have a free picnic every weekend.

Thats what the guy on GMR was doing, the one thats now a repair shop.
 

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
Hmm in that case I would park it where it would accrue tickets, be towed etc so the title owner would get them.

That would probably be the guy who traded it in to the dealer. He was a victim too. He would still be on the lien to the original bank, I imagine. Does the dealer transfer the title to himself when he accepts a trade? That wouldn't be possible with an unsatisfied lien anyway.
 
Top