A Missouri couple is suing a local dealership in federal court, alleging they were subjected to a string of “predatory and deceptive” sales and financing practices during the purchase of a used 2021 Volkswagen ID4. The civil complaint, filed in May, accuses Sikeston Ford Lincoln of engaging in a bait-and-switch “yo-yo” financing scheme that ultimately led to financial harm, emotional distress, and the loss of the vehicle.
According to the lawsuit, Frederick and Sara Evans visited Sikeston Ford in January 2024 to buy the electric crossover, armed with a pre-approved loan. They contend the dealership confirmed financing terms of a 7.59 percent interest rate and a 150,000-mile extended warranty and allowed them to take delivery of the vehicle. But the couple claims the financing was never finalized as promised.
Instead, they allege the dealership returned days later with revised terms—raising the interest rate to 7.74 percent, reducing the warranty to 100,000 miles, and omitting the GAP insurance they had requested. The lawsuit also alleges the dealership submitted multiple unauthorized credit applications, inflated the couple’s income on lender forms, and failed to provide them with the paperwork necessary to register the vehicle, damaging their credit in the process.
By August, tensions had escalated. The Evanses say a representative from the dealership arrived at their home with local police, threatened criminal charges, and demanded the vehicle be surrendered. Feeling cornered, the couple complied.
Sikeston Ford Lincoln denied wrongdoing in a June 19 court filing and requested the case be dismissed or moved to arbitration. The dealership argues the couple signed contracts containing mandatory arbitration clauses and maintains that the plaintiffs’ claims “lack the necessary factual and legal basis to proceed.”
The couple’s suit also claims the dealership engaged in negligent and unlawful conduct, citing violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Missouri consumer protection laws. They are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, including for wrongful repossession, breach of contract, and emotional distress.
The plaintiffs say they attempted to resolve the dispute outside the courtroom by contacting multiple government agencies, including the FBI (The FBI? REALLY?), the Missouri attorney general’s office, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission. None of those efforts resulted in a resolution.
At the heart of the dispute is the allegation that Sikeston Ford employed a common but controversial “yo-yo” tactic—letting a customer drive away under one set of terms, only to later claim financing fell through and demand new, often less favorable terms. Federal regulators have previously warned dealerships against such practices, particularly when they involve falsified documents or threaten consumers’ credit standing.
The litigation is ongoing.
I have written in the past about “spot deliveries”. If you missed it, you can read more about this practice here:
READ: The Truth About Spot Deliveries →
Then two Florida dealerships are facing separate federal lawsuits from consumers who allege they were sold used vehicles under the false pretense that the cars were new, raising serious questions about dealer practices and compliance with federal and state consumer protection laws.
In one case, plaintiff Shawn Crowley alleges that Sun Toyota in Holiday, Florida, sold him a 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser in February that was advertised and documented as new with just 10 “factory miles.” According to the complaint, a service light appeared within 48 hours of delivery, prompting Crowley to check the odometer—which revealed nearly 5,000 miles had already been driven. Crowley contends the dealership misrepresented the vehicle’s condition and attempted to downplay the discrepancy as a paperwork typo. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, seeks damages under the Federal Odometer Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation.
In a separate complaint, Lilly Althauser-Benson accuses Jerry Ulm Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram in Tampa of selling her a previously titled 2024 Jeep Wrangler Sahara 4xe as new in November 2024. The suit alleges that the vehicle had already been sold and titled to a leasing company prior to her purchase. Despite that, the dealership allegedly affixed a reproduction factory window sticker showing a full new-vehicle MSRP and completed a retail installment sales contract marking the Jeep as new. The lawsuit claims that the dealership deliberately withheld the title during the sale to prevent the customer from discovering the vehicle's prior ownership. The plaintiff further argues that she was misled into believing the Wrangler qualified for a $3,750 federal EV tax credit, which is only available for new, untitled vehicles.
In addition to damages under the Federal Odometer Act, the Tampa lawsuit seeks to invoke the Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule to hold the lender, Stellantis Financial Services, jointly liable for the dealership’s alleged misrepresentations. The plaintiff is asking for the sale to be revoked, restitution of all payments, and compensatory damages.
Both Florida lawsuits point to what plaintiffs describe as systematic efforts to disguise the used status of vehicles and exploit consumer trust in the new-car sales process. Neither dealership has publicly commented on the pending litigation.
.jpg?width=150&name=jerry-headshot.jpg%20(1).jpg)
