Quick Contact

News

• Car Buyer Rights in Virginia Extended Warranties
• Leased Cars Instead of Clunkers are Popular for High Schoolers
• 3 Auto Dealer Tactics the Overhaul Missed: By RON LIEBER
• CONSUMER WATCH: The downside of voluntary repossession
• Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership
• USED-VEHICLE PURCHASE
• J. Smith v. Casey Chevrolet, Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia:
• Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. Pays Judgments
• CONSUMER WATCH: Looking for options in tough cases
• Consumer Watch: Couple gets some relief in warranty case

more >

Case Results

• Auto Fraud
• Richmond Dealer Guilty of Fraud, Punitive Damages Awarded

Awarded: $34,000 in punitive damages

• Dealership Found Guilty of Fraud in Sale of BMW
• CAR DEALER ORDERED TO PAY $140,000 + FOR FRAUD, CLAIMS POVERTY
• Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. Pays Judgments
• Settled Case - Auto Fraud
• Settled Case - Prior Wreck Auto Fraud
• Automobile Fraud
• Auto Fraud - Settled Case
• Car Dealership Pays Over $114,500 For Fraud In Selling Wrecked Vehicle

Awarded: Over $114,500

• Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership

Awarded: $114,400

• Auto Fraud Case Results
• Yo-Yo Sale Results in Allegations of Fraud, Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Equal Credit Opportunity Act
• GM Dealer Settles Fraud Case After Two Mistrials

Awarded: Confidential

• Dealership Settles Case on Automobile Fraud, Violation of VA Consumer Protection Act, and The Federal Odometer Act.

Awarded: $57,000

more >

DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

Settled Case - Prior Wreck Auto Fraud

In March of 2005, The Consumer Law Group settled a case against a franchise dealership in the western part of Virginia. Our client was a victim of fraud. The dealer sold our client a vehicle that had been wrecked, while telling her the vehicle had not been wrecked. The Consumer Law Group also discovered that the interest rate the dealer gave our client had been marked up above the rate she had been approved at by the lender. The dealer received an undisclosed kick back from the lender based on the amount the dealer inflated the rate above the rate for which our client was approved. Car dealers call this practice “rehashing” or “participation.” The suit was filed based on fraud and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). Prior to the trial, the case was settled for $47,500.