Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/06/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On 6/4/2024, I encountered a ******** ad from I-95 Toyota promoting their "Upside Down & Payoff Sales Event." The ad claimed the dealership would pay off the remaining balance of a trade-in vehicle even if the owner owed more than its worth, contingent on making a deal. Phrases like "no matter what is owed" and "drive for $0 down" were emphasized, leading me to believe my negative equity would be fully covered. I responded to the ad and set an appointment for 6/5/2024 at 11:15 am.
  
  On 6/5/2024, I arrived about 20 minutes late due to caring for my infant. After waiting approximately 15 minutes at the front desk, I was finally acknowledged by a sales associate named *******, with whom I would spend the next four hours unnecessarily. Despite repeatedly asking about the ad and the voucher, both ******* and his manager, *****, evaded my questions. At 3 pm, my truck was appraised, which seemed out of line given the ad's promise that the amount owed didn't matter.
  
  When discussing the final sale price of the 2022 Camry, ***** took over the discussion. I confronted him about the advertisement, asking if the dealership intended to honor it. He said yes but stipulated it had to be with a new car. I agreed to see a new car, but the numbers run for the new car still offered only the appraised value for my trade-in, contrary to the ad's implications. I asked if the advertisement was a lie intended to lure people in for a normal trade-in, and both ******* and ***** agreed.
  
  ***** handed me a contact card for ***** ****, the managing partner. When I emailed Mr. ***** he responded by stating the ad complied with all laws and clarified their position, but his explanation did not align with the ad's misleading promises. The company's handling of the situation was poor, as the ad misled me and likely others, causing wasted time and unnecessary pressure into a sale that did not match the advertisement's claims, which is contrary to ******* ***** ********** ****

  Business Response

  Date: 06/06/2024

  Below is how I responded to their complaint when they submitted through our website:

   

       I received your inquire with questions as to the ******** event. We take great care to ensure our verbiage in our ad complies with all laws. Nowhere in this ad does it say we are going to give you what you owe for your trade. It says, " If we make a deal, we will pay off your trade even if you owe more than it's worth!"  We have to pay off the trade in to get the title from the lien holder of that vehicle. While I apologize to you that you feel it was misleading, I feel we have been forthright and there is no part of this that we have not been able to honor. While the terms may not have been acceptable to you, and I understand that only you know what an acceptable offer that you can afford is. We have honored our portion by making an offer that could be approved by a lender that included paying off your trade. If you would like to meet with me and see if we can take that offer and find a way to make it more affordable, I would value the opportunity to do so. 

   

  Above response to the consumer follows directly with the approved ad run on ********. It never says we will give you what you owe, it states we will payoff what you owe. If a consumer owed zero would they expect zero for the trade in? I offered to have the customer comer in to see if I could help with the offer to see if I could make it more affordable to them. They have yet to respond to my email. 

   

  ***** ***** General Manager/ Managing Partner

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/06/2024

  
  
  

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

  
  

   Complaint: ********

  
  

  I respectfully decline the dealership's response and resolution to my complaint based on the following points:
  
  1. Misleading Advertising: The advertisement on ******** from I-95 Toyota of Brunswick emphasized phrases such as "no matter what is owed" and "drive for $0 down." These phrases are highly suggestive and lead an average consumer, like myself, to reasonably interpret that the dealership would fully cover any negative equity on a trade-in vehicle. This interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the phrases used in the advertisement.

  
  2. Expectation of Full Payoff: The advertisement's wording creates an expectation that the dealership would pay off the remaining balance of a trade-in vehicle regardless of the amount owed. The dealership's response clarifies that they intended only to cover the payoff as part of a new financing deal, but this crucial detail was not clearly communicated in the advertisement. An average consumer would not reasonably infer this limitation from the advertisement as presented.
  
  3. Federal Trade Commission Act Compliance: According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, advertisements must not be misleading and should be interpreted based on the perception of a reasonable consumer. The FTC’s guidelines stress that advertising claims should be clear and conspicuous to ensure that consumers are not misled. The advertisement in question fails this standard as it does not adequately clarify the conditions under which the payoff would occur.
  
  4. Lack of Clear Terms and Conditions: The advertisement did not include any clear terms and conditions or disclaimers that would inform consumers of the specific requirements needed to qualify for the payoff offer. The absence of such critical information constitutes a deceptive practice as defined by the FTC, which states that all material terms must be disclosed to avoid misleading consumers.
  
  5. Deceptive Sales Practices: The experience at the dealership, where repeated inquiries about the advertisement were evaded and where the sales process continued under misleading pretenses, demonstrates a pattern of deceptive sales practices. The dealership's behavior further reinforces the misleading nature of the advertisement, as they only clarified the true terms after significant pressure and wasted time.
  
  6. Reasonable Consumer Perspective: The interpretation of the advertisement should be based on the perspective of an average, reasonable consumer, not the internal understanding or intentions of the business. The law emphasizes how a consumer would understand the ad, not how the business perceives it. As an average consumer, I understood the advertisement to mean that my negative equity would be fully covered, which was not honored.
  

       a. Advertisements Interpreted Solely from the Average Consumer's Perspective: It is crucial to recognize that advertisements are interpreted solely from the perspective of the average consumer. This means that the promises and claims made in an advertisement must be evaluated based on how a typical person would understand them, without requiring any special knowledge or understanding of industry practices. The FTC mandates that advertisements be truthful and not misleading in the eyes of the average consumer. Therefore, the dealership's internal interpretation or intended meaning of the advertisement is irrelevant. What matters is how the average consumer, like myself, perceives the advertisement. The phrases "no matter what is owed" and "drive for $0 down" clearly imply that any negative equity would be fully covered, which was not honored in my case.

  7. Inadequate Response to Complaint: The response from ***** ****, the managing partner, fails to address the core issue of the misleading advertisement. Instead, it attempts to rationalize the dealership’s actions without acknowledging the deceptive nature of the advertisement as perceived by a reasonable consumer. The offered resolution does not rectify the misleading impression created by the advertisement, including honoring the terms as reasonably interpreted by consumers or providing alternative compensatory measures.
  
  8. Moot Point and Misdirection: Regarding the statement, "If a consumer owed zero, would they expect zero for the trade-in?" I find this argument to be a moot point and a misdirection for the following reasons:
  
       a. Target Audience of the Advertisement: The advertisement clearly targets consumers who have negative equity in their vehicles. A reasonable consumer who has a paid-off car is not the intended audience for an "Upside Down & Payoff Sales Event" since they do not have any remaining balance that needs to be covered. The primary allure of the advertisement is the promise to address negative equity, which is irrelevant to consumers with paid-off vehicles.
       b. Irrelevance to Paid-off Vehicles: The dealership's argument about a zero-balance trade-in is irrelevant because the advertisement’s phrases, such as "no matter what is owed," explicitly cater to individuals with outstanding balances on their vehicles. Consumers without such balances would not be attracted to or influenced by this advertisement, thereby nullifying the relevance of the statement made by the dealership.
       c. Misleading Nature of the Advertisement: The focus should remain on the misleading nature of the advertisement as it pertains to its actual target audience—consumers with negative equity. Bringing up a scenario involving paid-off vehicles diverts attention from the core issue, which is the misleading promise made to those with remaining balances. This diversion does not address the misleading interpretation faced by the actual audience of the advertisement.
        d. Consumer Expectations: A reasonable consumer, understanding the advertisement's target, expects that their negative equity will be fully covered based on the phrases used. This expectation is not only reasonable but also the logical interpretation of the advertisement's promises. The dealership's attempt to shift focus to an irrelevant scenario does not change the fact that the advertisement misleads its actual intended audience.
  

  9. Need for Third-Party Intervention: The reason I have not responded to Mr. Sims' email directly is because the dealership’s handling of my concerns and the subsequent response did not address the misleading nature of the advertisement. Given the dealership’s initial evasion of my inquiries and the unsatisfactory explanation provided, I felt the need to involve a third party such as the BBB or FTC. These organizations serve to mediate disputes and ensure that businesses adhere to truthful advertising practices, providing an impartial platform to resolve issues that were not adequately addressed directly with the business.
  
  Conclusion
  For these reasons, I find the dealership's response and resolution inadequate. The advertisement was misleading, failed to provide necessary disclaimers, and created unreasonable expectations for consumers. The dealership’s practices did not align with the legal standards set by the Federal Trade Commission Act for truthful and non-deceptive advertising. Therefore, I request a more appropriate resolution that acknowledges and addresses the misleading nature of the advertisement, including honoring the terms as reasonably interpreted by consumers or providing alternative compensatory measures.

  
  

  Regards,

  
  

  ******* ******** ***