Consumer complaint received 2026-04-12 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: Mercedes Benz Financial Services
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
Before any finalized purchase agreement or clear credit offer was extended, the dealership ran my credit and initiated a hard inquiry. A permissible purpose under the FCRA requires a bona fide credit transaction or firm offer of credit. In this case, the credit pull occurred without a finalized agreement and without a clearly disclosed or consummated credit offer, raising concerns under FCRA permissible purpose requirements and adverse impact obligations. Misrepresentation of Credit Approval Status ( ECOA / XXXX 15 U.S.C. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX ) I was told at different points that I was both : not approved for the vehicle I selected despite an XXXX FICO score, and XXXX credit score later effectively approved under alternative conditions involving a different vehicle and significantly altered terms. These contradictory representations create confusion regarding actual credit determination and appear to be inconsistent with XX/XX/XXXX requirements for fair, consistent, and nondiscriminatory credit evaluation. Under XXXX, creditors must provide consistent, nondiscriminatory treatment and must not misrepresent credit decisions or conditions of approval. The shifting narrative regarding approval status and qualification terms suggests potential XXXX violations due to deceptive credit representation. The dealership attempted to structure the transaction in a manner that improperly blended credit-based financing terms with cash-down requirements in a way that was not clearly separated or consistently disclosed. Under Regulation XXXX ( Truth in Lending Act ), credit terms must be clearly disclosed, and financing conditions must be presented in a transparent and non-misleading manner. Credit and cash components of a transaction must be properly itemized and can not be used in a way that obscures the true cost of credit or the actual loan terms being offered. The shifting requirement of : {$25000.00} down payment, later increased to {$30000.00}, and claims of a {$200000.00} down requirement on a ~ {$220000.00} vehicle reflects a lack of consistent underwriting disclosure and raises concerns under XX/XX/XXXX requirement for clear and accurate credit terms and APR disclosure integrity. After initially engaging in a transaction for a specific vehicle, I was redirected to a different vehicle I did not select. I was told I needed to crawl before I walk, implying I was not permitted to purchase the originally selected vehicle despite strong creditworthiness. This constitutes a classic bait-and-switch pattern, which is prohibited under Section XXXX of the Federal Trade Commission Act and qualifies as a XXXX deceptive practice when a consumer is induced toward XXXX product and then steered to another under pressure. The transaction included multiple fees ( documentation, dealer, electronic filing ) and additional warranty products that were not clearly disclosed or itemized. Under TILA and Regulation XXXX, all financed charges and optional add-ons must be clearly disclosed, voluntary, and separately agreed upon. Failure to clearly itemize discretionary versus mandatory charges constitutes a material disclosure failure and potential deceptive practice under UDAAP. I was instructed to sign documents electronically and was told this process was mandatory. I was not informed that I had the right to request paper documents executed with wet ink signatures. Under the E-SIGN Act, electronic signatures are only valid where the consumer provides informed consent to electronic delivery and execution. Misrepresenting electronic signing as mandatory when it is not, or failing to provide meaningful disclosure of alternatives, raises concerns under both E-SIGN compliance requirements and UDAAP standards for deceptive conduct. Additionally, the documents were presented in a rushed manner, limiting meaningful review or informed consent. As a result of the dealerships conduct : My credit report was accessed via hard inquiry without a clearly consummated transaction. I received inconsistent and contradictory representations of credit approval. I was subjected to shifting and excessive down payment demands. I was steered away from my selected vehicle toward an alternative. I was presented with undisclosed or improperly disclosed fees and add-ons. I was misled regarding electronic signature requirements and execution rights. I was encouraged by dealership personnel to apply for financing under my business profile rather than my personal credit profile, with the representation that doing so would result in a better approval outcome. This conduct implicates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( XXXX ), 15 U.S.C. XXXX et seq., and Regulation XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Part XXXX ), which govern fair access to credit and prohibit discriminatory or misleading credit application practices. Under ECOA and Regulation XXXX : A creditor or its agents may not engage in practices that discourage or steer an applicant between credit channels in a manner that is misleading or not based on legitimate underwriting criteria. Credit decisions and application channels must be presented in a clear, transparent, and nondiscriminatory manner, without implying that alternative application types are required absent objective underwriting necessity. Here, I was directed away from a personal credit applicationdespite a strong personal credit profile ( XXXX FICO ) and encouraged to proceed under a business credit application as a strategy to improve approval likelihood. This created ambiguity regarding : the actual basis of credit evaluation and underwriting pathway, whether different or less favorable underwriting standards were being applied without disclosure, and whether the application process was being structured to influence approval conditions rather than evaluate credit uniformly. This conduct also raises concerns under CFPB UDAAP standards ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) to the extent that a reasonable consumer could be led to believe that switching from personal to business credit was necessary or materially advantageous for approval, without clear disclosure of the underwriting differences, risks, or necessity for such a change.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation