Consumer complaint received 2025-12-21 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem with paying off the loan
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX. XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney. Pursuant to Maryland Estates & Trusts 17-113, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. 
Ally Financial Inc. is a creditor and furnisher as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. Ally Financial Inc. is the current holder and assignee of a Retail Installment Sale Contract executed by XXXX XXXX. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for the purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX : XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX ). The contract reflects an Amount Financed of {$67000.00}, a Finance Charge of {$41000.00}, a Total of Payments of {$100000.00}, and 72 monthly payments of {$1500.00} beginning XX/XX/XXXX. Ally Financial Inc. reports this account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
CURRENT FURNISHING ACTIVITY As of the date of this complaint, Ally Financial Inc. is actively furnishing Account No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to consumer reporting agencies. The tradeline is reported with a current balance of {$44000.00}, a past-due amount of {$4000.00}, and a payment status of " Late 90 Days. '' The most recent XXXX XXXX transmission occurred on or about XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
The Retail Installment Sale Contract contains the mandatory FTC Holder Rule notice required by 16 C.F.R. 433.2, which states : " NOTICE : ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. '' This notice preserves all consumer defenses against Ally Financial Inc. as assignee.

DEALER MISCONDUCT AND ORIGINATION CONTAMINATION The XX/XX/XXXX Retail Installment Sale Contract was originated as a consumer sale, not a loan. Under Virginia retail installment sales law and the Federal Trade Commission Holder Rule, the seller 's conduct at origination is determinative of the contract 's legal validity and enforceability, and any assignee takes the contract subject to all claims and defenses arising from that conduct. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as seller-creditor, did not independently determine creditworthiness, pricing, or approval terms. Instead, the Dealer relied upon XXXX or XXXX credit scores generated through third-party credit reporting infrastructure to approve the transaction, assign a risk tier, and establish the finance charge and total cost of credit reflected in the contract. 
Those credit scores were not neutral informational tools. They were revenue-producing derivative products created through the monetization of the buyer 's personal identifying information and sold to merchants and finance companies for underwriting purposes. The Dealer 's use of those scores constituted a material component of the transaction and directly controlled whether the sale would occur and on what terms. 
As detailed below, the XXXX and XXXX scoring systems were derived from contracts executed by legally nonexistent entities and were therefore void ab initio. The Dealer 's reliance on those scores rendered the underwriting process unlawful at inception and caused the Dealer to present and execute a Retail Installment Sale Contract whose approval, pricing, and disclosures were based on identity-derived data generated without lawful authority.

Because the underwriting defect occurred at the point of sale, it is non-curable. No subsequent assignment, servicing, payment history, or performance can remedy an origination defect rooted in unlawful identity monetization and void scoring infrastructure. The resulting contract was never lawfully underwritten as a consumer credit obligation. 
Ally Financial Inc., as assignee, acquired no greater rights than the Dealer possessed. Under the FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433.2, and Virginia law governing retail installment sales, Ally Financial Inc. took the contract subject to all claims and defenses arising from the Dealer 's misconduct, including the unlawful use of void credit scoring systems to originate the transaction. 
Accordingly, Ally Financial Inc. can not lawfully enforce, service, collect upon, or furnish information relating to a Retail Installment Sale Contract whose approval and pricing were contaminated at inception by identity theft and void underwriting infrastructure.

THE EVIDENCE OF NULLITY The Retail Installment Sale Contract is void ab initio as a consumer credit obligation. The original contract was underwritten using XXXX or XXXX credit scoringinfrastructure derived from void contracts with a legally defunct corporation. The evidence is as follows : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name " XXXX XXXX XXXX' with the Georgia Secretary of Statea preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX was incorporated in Georgia as a separate entitya deliberate act by Retail Credit Company to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for RCC 's later filings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Retail Credit Company amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name " XXXX XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. 
On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( the separate entity incorporated 11 months earlier ) changed its name to " Retail Credit Company. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created two conflicting corporate identities existing in tandemfor a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX entities were both called " XXXX XXXX XXXX  simultaneouslyan unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of Georgia Business Corporation Code 22-301 ( c ) ( XXXX ), which required that corporate names " be distinguishable upon the records of the Secretary of State from the name of any other corporation. '' Both filings falsely certified under 22-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( 1975 ) that the name was " available for use. '' Under 22-504 ( a ) ( 1975 ), any charter " issued or any action taken by the Secretary of State in reliance upon any false, misleading or fraudulent statement or certificate filed with him shall be null and void ab initio . '' The Secretary of State accepted both amendments. Both charters became null and void ab initio the instant the second filing was accepted. From December 30, 1975 forward, there has been no lawful Georgia entity named " XXXX XXXX '' capable of entering contracts. Under 22-1421 ( a ) ( now recodified as O.C.G.A. 14-2-401 and 14-2-501 ), a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. 
On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXd XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the Analytic Products and Services Master Contract ( Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX XXXX  credit bureau database. The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX XXXX entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. 
The defect : By XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. There was no lawful Georgia entity named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX capable of entering contracts. The XXXX agreement was XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
In XXXX, XXXX XXXX unveiled the generic credit bureau model that became the industry standardseparately branded as Beacon for XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX risk rankings into numbers ranging from XXXX to XXXX. This deployment propagated the void XXXX contract across all three major credit reporting agencies, establishing the XXXX scoring range as the universal standard for consumer creditworthiness assessment. Every lender, every auto dealer, every finance company adopted this scoring system derived from XXXX XXXX XXXX 's void XXXX contract with the legally defunct XXXX XXXX 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX major credit reporting agencies created XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX File Number XXXX ) with XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ) as owners. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, OLDE 's formation was void ab initio because XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not legally exist. XXXX serves as the managing entity for e-XXXX  the centralized platform processing all consumer disputes under FCRA. 
On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX formed XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Delaware File Number XXXX ). XXXX 's third purported owner, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX never lawfully existed. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, an LLC must be formed by valid members. XXXX 's formation was void ab initio.

The acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's personal identifiersSocial Security number, legal name, address, and historical payment datafor the purpose of generating and selling XXXX and XXXX credit scores constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to create a thing of value. This conduct meets the definition of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrument that continues to generate revenue through monthly payments, interest charges, and potential securitization cash flows.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION AND RESTITUTION NOTICE Ally Financial Inc. is directed to preserve, without alteration, all records, communications, metadata, origination documentation, underwriting files, credit scoring data, assignment documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, payment histories, collection activity logs, and chain-of-custody materials relating to this contract and any credit reporting furnished to consumer reporting agencies. 
Under Virginia Code 8.01-243.1 and principles of unjust enrichment, when a contract is void ab initio due to fraudulent underwriting, all payments made under that void obligation are recoverable. The buyer is entitled to complete restitution of all funds paidprincipal, interest, fees, and penaltiesduring the period Ally Financial Inc. has held this void instrument.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation