Consumer complaint received 2024-07-02 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Tesla, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Supplemental Complaint Disputing Tesla 's Response - Ref # XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I am writing to dispute the patently false and deceptive response provided by Tesla Staff Case Manager XXXX XXXX regarding my original complaint ( Reference # XXXX ) against Tesla 's unlawful lending practices. 
In her response dated XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX provided several statements that are directly contradicted by evidence and internal communications from Tesla 's own representatives. 

Credit Report Freeze Claim XXXX XXXX stated that as of XX/XX/year> my XXXX credit report was frozen, which was the reason for declining my Tesla Finance application. However, this is provably false based on Tesla 's internal email from XXXX dated XX/XX/year>, which stated : " Notably, the email does not list any denial reasons from Tesla 's own financing arm, Tesla Finance LLC. The implication is that they did not outright deny your application themselves. '' This directly contradicts XXXX XXXX 's claim that a credit freeze was the reason for denial by Tesla Finance LLC. Their own financing arm appears to have not denied me at all according to XXXX 's email. 

Evidence of Credit Report Access Further disproving XXXX XXXX 's credit freeze claim, XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX email shows multiple other lenders like XXXX and XXXX successfully accessed and pulled my credit reports on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX. Attached are records confirming those inquiries. 

If a legitimate freeze was in place, it is impossible these other lenders could have pulled my reports. This evidence utterly contradicts XXXX XXXX 's stated reason for denial. 

Contradictory Adverse Action Letter Date Additionally, the adverse action letter I received from Tesla Finance LLC was dated XX/XX/year> - nearly a month after the purported XX/XX/XXXX freeze date XXXX XXXX cited. 

How could they issue a denial letter on XX/XX/XXXX if they had already denied me on XX/XX/XXXX due to a freeze? This discrepancy renders XXXX XXXX 's stated justification simply not credible. 

Failure to Address Other Allegations XXXX XXXX ignored several serious issues I raised, including : Deceptive credit application disclosures lacking transparency Disregarding documentation like my Social Security card Potentially misleading advertising on pricing and vehicle range Deceptive practices around conducting widespread hard inquiries By disregarding all these allegations, her response simply continues Tesla 's pattern of obfuscation and deception. 

Battery Range Misrepresentation Your response also failed to address my complaint about the vehicle 's actual battery range falling well short of what was advertised on Tesla 's website. As of today, with under XXXX miles, the maximum range I am experiencing is only around XXXX miles on a full charge- over XXXX miles less than the XXXX mile range promised. 
Lack of Evidence At no point did XXXX XXXX provide actual evidence to substantiate Tesla 's claims, such as records of when they attempted to pull my credit, rationale for other lenders accessing reports, or copies of any denial letter from Tesla Finance. Her vague assertions completely lack credibility. 

Tesla 's internal communications and documentation clearly contradict the justifications provided in XXXX XXXX 's response. This, combined with her failure to address the bulk of my allegations, demonstrates a continued pattern of deception and bad faith from Tesla.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation