Consumer complaint received 2025-09-22 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Santander Consumer USA for funding a auto loan that was deceptively originated by its dealer partner, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Santander is liable for the dealer 's misconduct under the FTC Holder Rule for severe violations of consumer financial protection laws, including deceptive and unfair acts and practices per UDAAP, TILA and FLHSMV. 
On XX/XX/year>, a co-borrower and I entered XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase a used vehicle. The intended loan structure, as agreed upon verbally and during the credit application process, was with me as the primary borrower and the co-borrower as a co-signer. This was explicitly to avoid negatively impacting the XXXX 's being as though she recently obtained a new car loan XXXX months prior and did not want to take on primary liability for another vehicle. 
However, during the signing process, the finance XXXX presented documents on a tablet with a completely different structure, making the co-borrower the primary borrower without our prior knowledge or consent. When questioned, the XXXX was vague and rushed us through the electronic signatures, failing to explain the critical changes or the terms. 

The primary borrower, who has a top-tier XXXX XXXX, was then charged an abnormally high Annual Percentage Rate of XXXX XXXX for a used vehicle, a rate inconsistent with their creditworthiness all so they can hike the rate to make an extra profit. We were also coerced into adding a {$1200.00} XXXX policy and a {$3200.00} service contract. 

Most egregiously, to facilitate this non-consensual loan structure without disclosure, XXXX XXXX XXXX committed forgery. The sale rep and finance XXXX I had to obtain valid vehicle insurance and show proof upon signing docs believing I was the primary owner, they never asked the co borrower to provide proof of insurance. Upon reviewing dealership fraudulently altered the " AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE INSURANCE '' document by listing the co-borrower as the insured party, knowingly submitting XXXX XXXX XXXX Santander Consumer USA to secure funding for a loan that would otherwise be invalid due to an insurance discrepancy to cover their switch and bait. 
We were not provided with all transaction documents at delivery and were forced to make multiple written requests once via email the day of signing and a written request on XX/XX/year> to obtain a complete set. The package included a " Conditional Delivery Agreement, '' revealing the dealer could cancel the contract within 30 days, a term never explained to us, and given at copy of at signing creating a classic " yo-yo '' financing scenario. 

LIST OF VIOLATIONS : UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices - CFPB/FTC ) : The dealers actions were deeply deceptive and unfair. They baited us with XXXX loan structure and switched it at signing without clear consent. Rushing signatures on a tablet without transparent explanation of terms, including a high APR and a conditional delivery clause, is abusive. The act of forging an insurance document is a blatantly deceptive practice to secure funding for an unapproved loan. 
TILA ( Regulation Z ) : The failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of credit before consummation, particularly the drastic change in the identity of the primary borrower and the resulting finance charges, violates the core purpose of TILA. The provision of incomplete documents at delivery also violates XXXX 's requirement to provide the borrower with a copy of the executed contract. 

Forgery / Fraudulent Misrepresentation : The deliberate alteration of the " AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE INSURANCE '' document to list an incorrect insured party constitutes forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation. This was a willful act intended to deceive the lender and XXXX so they can get the loan funded. 

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( XXXX ) : The previously mentioned actions constitute unfair and deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce under Florida XXXX XXXX. 

Florida Department XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( FLHSMV ) : The fraudulent " AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE INSURANCE '' was likely used to complete the title and registration paperwork, including the Florida Insurance Affidavit ( HSMV XXXX ), which was signed under penalty of perjury based on false information. 

FCRA : The dealership likely " shotgunned '' our credit application to multiple lenders without our specific, express permission for each XXXX, potentially causing unnecessary hard inquiries and damage to our credit profiles.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation