{"took":2296,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":3,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18662229","_score":26.538216,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Against Santander Consumer USA Financing of Defective/Recalled Vehicle and UDAAP Violations Complaint Narrative : I am writing to formally complain about Santander Consumer USA regarding a vehicle loan for a XXXX XXXX XXXX . This vehicle was sold and financed with a major transmission defect that was subject to an active safety recall at the time of sale/financing, rendering the vehicle undrivable and a significant safety hazard.\n\n1. Facts of the Dispute : On XX/XX/XXXX I entered into a financing agreement with Santander. Shortly after, the vehicle suffered a total transmission failure. Upon investigation, I discovered the transmission was part of an existing safety recall. The vehicle is currently inoperable, yet Santander continues to demand payment for an asset that can not be legally or safely driven.\n\n2. Legal Violations : I believe Santanders actions violate several consumer protection standards : UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) : Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), it is \" unfair '' to subject a consumer to substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable. Financing a vehicle with a known, unrepaired safety recall that prevents use of the vehicle constitutes a substantial injury.\n\nFTC Holder Rule ( 16 CFR Part 433 ) : As the holder of the credit contract, Santander is subject to all claims and defenses which I could assert against the original seller. Because the dealer sold a vehicle with a major undisclosed defect/recall, Santander shares liability for the \" lemon '' status of this vehicle. \n* National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30112 ) : While this primarily governs dealers, the financing of a vehicle that violates federal safety standards ( due to an open recall ) calls into question the validity of the underlying contract.\n\n3. Inability to Drive : The vehicle is currently sitting at sold because it is unsafe to operate. I have attempted to resolve this with Santander, but they have refused to pause payments or assist in a buyback, despite the vehicle 's \" dead '' status. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T21:23:35.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18662229","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-12T21:17:10.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Formal Complaint Against Santander Consumer USA <em>Financing</em> of Defective/<em>Recalled</em> Vehicle and UDAAP Violations Complaint Narrative : I am writing to formally complain about Santander Consumer USA regarding a vehicle loan for a XXXX XXXX XXXX . This vehicle was sold and <em>financed</em> with a major transmission defect that was subject to an active safety <em>recall</em> at the <em>time</em> of <em>sale</em>/<em>financing</em>, <em>rendering</em> the vehicle undrivable and a significant safety hazard.\n\n1."]},"sort":[26.538216,"18662229"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11460048","_score":12.144838,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint : Deceptive Financial Practices and Consumer Exploitation by CarMax To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this formal complaint against CarMax for engaging in unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial practices in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). CarMaxs conduct has resulted in significant financial harm, emotional distress, and a violation of my rights as a consumer. \n\nSummary of Violations : Unfair Financing Practices ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Description : CarMax provided financing terms for a XXXX XXXX XXXX without disclosing the financial impact of unresolved safety recalls and repair obligations that they failed to address. \nXXXX XXXX : CarMax knowingly withheld critical information about the vehicles defects and recalls, leading to unforeseen financial burdens post-purchase. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX : Selling a vehicle with unresolved safety recalls while imposing repair costs that should have been covered under recall obligations. \nDeceptive Practices in Product Representation ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ) : Description : The vehicle was marketed as certified and reliable despite known defects, including faulty tires, unresolved recalls, and a history of use as a loaner vehicle. \nXXXX XXXX  : Intentional misrepresentation of material facts to induce the sale. \nXXXX XXXX : Misleading marketing and false certification, resulting in financial harm to the buyer. \nExploitation of Financial Vulnerabilities : Description : By failing to address critical safety recalls and charging for repair costs, CarMax exploited regulatory loopholes, placing an undue financial burden on me. \nXXXX XXXX : Deliberate neglect of obligations to maximize financial gain at the consumers expense. \nXXXX XXXX  : Imposing unjustified financial costs through deceptive practices. \nIncident Details : Purchase Information : Vehicle : XXXX XXXX XXXX Purchase Date and Location : XX/XX/XXXX, CarMax, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Financial Impact : Significant out-of-pocket expenses for repairs directly tied to unresolved recalls and other defects. \nEmotional distress and lost time due to CarMaxs refusal to address these issues or provide a resolution.\n\nWhy CFPB Involvement Is Critical : CarMaxs practices undermine fundamental principles of fairness and transparency in financial transactions. The CFPB has a vital role in addressing deceptive practices that harm consumers and enforcing compliance with federal laws designed to protect financial rights.\n\nRequested Actions : Investigate CarMaxs Practices : Review their compliance with federal consumer protection laws, particularly regarding transparency in financing and disclosure of material defects. \nEnforce Penalties : Impose financial penalties commensurate with the harm caused to consumers. \nMandate Restitution : Require CarMax to reimburse affected consumers for unjustified repair costs, emotional distress, and any other financial losses.\n\nStrengthen Oversight : Recommend stricter regulations to ensure full disclosure of safety recalls and transparent financial practices in vehicle sales. \nSupporting Documentation : I have retained all relevant documentation, including the purchase agreement, repair invoices, recall notices, and correspondence with CarMax. These materials are available upon request to aid in your investigation. \n\nConclusion : I urge the CFPB to take swift action to hold CarMax accountable for their deceptive financial practices and to protect consumers from further harm. Your intervention is crucial to restoring fairness and transparency in the automotive sales industry. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or documentation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX In XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a purchase and financing agreement with CarMax and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) for a XXXX XXXX XXXX , involving an initial down payment of {$3000.00}. Subsequently, I discovered multiple breaches of disclosure obligations, contractual duties, and statutory requirements. CarMax materially misrepresented the vehicles condition, concealing its prior usage as a loaner, unresolved safety recalls, and pre-existing defects, including an improperly maintained battery and defective interior components. These omissions directly contravened both federal and state consumer protection laws. \n\nDespite assurances regarding the vehicles fitness, CarMax failed to fulfill its warranty obligations, requiring me to bear out-of-pocket expenses for repairs, including those covered by manufacturer recalls. Moreover, CarMaxs negligent and deceptive actions resulted in additional financial harm, such as damage to my work uniforms due to improperly restored interior paint. These breaches demonstrate a reckless disregard for compliance with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and applicable vehicle safety standards. \n\nCompounding these violations, XXXX  engaged in predatory lending practices and systematic non-compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). XXXX misapplied payments, imposed unauthorized fees, and provided intentionally opaque and misleading billing statements. Despite my attempts to rectify these issues, XXXX refused to resolve disputes, failed to furnish clear documentation, and repossessed the vehicle without adherence to due process requirements under Illinois and federal repossession statutes. These actions inflicted significant financial, emotional, and reputational harm. \n\nRepeated requests for documentation and evidence related to billing discrepancies, repossession justification, and vehicle condition were ignored or delayed by CarMax and XXXX, obstructing my ability to pursue legal remedies. This demonstrates a pattern of obstruction and bad faith, further violating federal consumer protection laws and undermining the principles of fair dealing and transparency. \n\nI respectfully request the CFPB to conduct a thorough investigation into CarMaxs and XXXX  systemic violations of consumer protection statutes, including the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), FDCPA, and the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Their deceptive practices, predatory lending, and willful non-compliance have caused substantial harm, necessitating remedial actions, restitution, and regulatory enforcement. I consent to the publication of this complaint to inform other consumers of these practices and to promote systemic accountability. \n\nViolations by CarMax : 1. Deceptive Trade Practices Law : Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) 5 ( a ) Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.\n\nSelling a vehicle with undisclosed defects, loaning it out without disclosure, and misrepresenting mileage and battery condition constitute deceptive practices.\n\nState Law ( Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ) CarMax 's failure to disclose material facts, such as loaning out the car and the condition of the battery, violates this law.\n\n2. Breach of Warranty Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( Uniform Commercial Code - UCC 2-314 ) A car must be fit for ordinary use. Selling a car with defective tires, rims, and a battery that fails shortly after purchase breaches this warranty.\n\nMagnuson-Moss Warranty Act Federal law governing warranties on consumer products. If CarMax failed to honor warranty obligations or misled you about the warranty, this law applies.\n\n3. Failure to Disclose Recalls National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act Selling a car with recalled tires without addressing the recall violates federal law. The cost of repairing recalls must not be passed to the consumer.\n\n4. Fraud and Misrepresentation Common Law Fraud Falsely claiming that the battery was new, concealing the car 's loaned status, and misrepresenting the mileage as being solely from the previous owner could constitute fraud.\n\nFalse Advertising Laws Any promotional material or oral assurances about the vehicle 's condition that were inaccurate violate false advertising statutes.\n\n5. Violation of the Used Car Rule FTC 's Used Car Rule Requires dealerships to disclose known mechanical defects and whether the car is being sold \" as is. '' Failure to disclose the loaning out of the car or prior damages violates this rule.\n\n6. Improper Repairs and Damage to Property Negligence Painting over leather instead of properly repairing it, leading to damage to your uniforms, constitutes negligence.\n\nBreach of Duty of Care CarMax has a duty to perform repairs in a professional and non-damaging manner.\n\n7. Violation of Consumer Leasing Disclosures Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Consumer Leasing Act ( CLA ) If CarMax failed to disclose loaning the car out or included deceptive financing terms in your purchase agreement, it may violate federal disclosure laws.\n\n8. Breach of Contract Selling a vehicle with unaddressed defects breaches the sales agreement if the vehicle was represented as fit and free from defects. \n\nPotential Violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Investigate Disputes Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Creditors must investigate disputes thoroughly. If you reported these issues, XXXX 's failure to address them could violate this law. \nUnfair Debt Collection Practices Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) If XXXX  is attempting to collect a debt arising from a deceptively sold car, they may be engaging in unfair practices.\n\nBreach of Contract and UCC Default Rules Your financial agreement with XXXX  is tied to the cars fitness. Selling a defective car undermines the basis for the financing agreement.\n\nSteps to Resolve the Issues 1. Document All Evidence Compile all conversations, emails, repair receipts, and reports related to the cars issues. Include dates, times, and the names of CarMax representatives you spoke with.\n\n2. Send Demand Letters Send a formal demand letter to CarMax and XXXX  outlining the issues, legal violations, and your request for resolution ( e.g., full repair, loan forgiveness, or compensation for damages ). Cite applicable laws and statutes.\n\n3. File Complaints File a complaint with the following agencies : Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : For deceptive practices. \nIllinois Attorney General : For state-level violations. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : To document complaints and escalate the matter. \n4. Seek Legal Representation Consult a consumer protection attorney to : Review the sales contract and financing agreement. \nEvaluate claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and deceptive practices. \nAssist with pursuing damages or negotiating a settlement. \n5. Dispute the Debt Notify XXXX  in writing that the debt is in dispute due to the defective and deceptively sold car. Request they suspend collection activity until the dispute is resolved. \n6. File a Civil Suit If CarMax and XXXX  fail to address your claims, you can file a lawsuit for : Fraud Breach of contract Violation of consumer protection laws Damages caused by negligence 7. Report to Credit Bureaus If XXXX reports you as being in default, file a dispute with the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). Provide evidence of the underlying issues. \n\nNext Steps If you'd like, I can assist with drafting demand letters, compiling evidence, or preparing a list of legal violations to include in your formal complaints or legal case. \nLegal Analysis of the Incident On XX/XX/XXXX, after finalizing the purchase agreement initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, you acquired a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CarMax, located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The transaction included a {$3000.00} down payment, and subsequent payments were required to be made to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), XXXX, whose address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, the contractual process and subsequent interactions were fraught with material misrepresentations, nondisclosures, and breaches of statutory and contractual duties by CarMax and XXXX, resulting in financial, reputational, and professional harm to you. \nDeceptive Misrepresentation and Non-Disclosure ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMax represented the vehicle as being in good condition, equipped with a new battery, and with all mileage attributed to the prior owner. It later became evident that these representations were false. The vehicle had been loaned out by CarMax prior to the sale, a material fact that was neither disclosed nor documented in the purchase agreement. Furthermore, the battery installed in the vehicle was determined to be the original unit from the prior owner, contrary to CarMaxs assertions. These omissions and misrepresentations constitute actionable fraud under common law and violate consumer protection statutes.\n\nBreach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( UCC 2-314 ) The Uniform Commercial Code imposes an implied warranty of merchantability on all goods sold by merchants, requiring the goods to be fit for ordinary purposes. The vehicles defective tires ( subject to a manufacturer recall ), damaged paint, faulty battery, and improperly repaired leather seat constitute breaches of this warranty. Furthermore, CarMaxs decision to charge you for repairs related to the recalled tires and other known defects violates UCC provisions and undermines the core purpose of implied warranties. \nUnfair and Deceptive Practices ( XXXX XXXX ) The practices of CarMax fall under the purview of federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( 815 ILCS 505/1 ). CarMaxs failure to disclose the loaning out of the car, misrepresentation of the vehicles condition, and subsequent inadequate repairs amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices, actionable under this statute. These actions also violate the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ). \nFailure to Honor Recall Obligations Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ), dealerships must repair or replace defective or recalled parts at no cost to the consumer. Charging you for the replacement of recalled tires directly contravenes this federal mandate. This failure further exacerbates CarMaxs liability and underscores its non-compliance with federal safety standards.\n\nBreach of Contract ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The purchase agreement inherently required CarMax to deliver a vehicle in accordance with the representations made at the time of sale. The failure to fulfill contractual obligationssuch as repairing the leather seat and ensuring the vehicles overall functionalityconstitutes a breach of contract, actionable under Illinois contract law. \nNegligence and Damage to Personal Property CarMaxs improper repair practices, including painting the leather seat rather than using appropriate restoration methods, caused damage to your uniforms and personal property. This constitutes negligence under Illinois tort law, as CarMax owed a duty of care to perform repairs professionally and breached that duty, resulting in foreseeable damages.\n\nApplicable Laws and Violations Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 2-314 Violation : Breach of implied warranty of merchantability.\n\nCause and Effect : Delivery of a vehicle unfit for ordinary use led to additional expenses and loss of income.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Violation : Unfair and deceptive practices.\n\nCause and Effect : Misrepresentation of vehicle condition and loaning history caused financial and reputational harm.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( 815 ILCS 505/1 ) Violation : Misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts.\n\nCause and Effect : Deceptive sales practices undermined the validity of the transaction.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax. \nNational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) Violation : Charging for repairs related to recalled tires.\n\nCause and Effect : Violation of federal safety standards caused financial loss.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Violation : Failure by XXXX  to investigate disputes and inaccurate reporting. \nCause and Effect : Damage to credit score and financial reputation. \nResponsible Party : XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAgencies and Actions Required Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : File a complaint against XXXX  for mishandling disputes and violating credit reporting obligations. \nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : Report CarMax for deceptive trade practices and non-compliance with federal regulations. \nIllinois Attorney Generals Office : File a complaint under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Report CarMaxs failure to honor recall obligations.\n\nLegal Representation : Engage a consumer protection attorney to pursue claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence against CarMax. Seek damages for financial loss, emotional distress, and reputational harm.\n\nConclusion CarMaxs conduct in this matter demonstrates a pattern of deceptive practices, contractual breaches, and statutory violations. XXXX  failure to provide proper notice and its role in exacerbating the harm through improper credit reporting adds to the complexity of this case. Immediate legal action, coupled with regulatory complaints, will be necessary to rectify these violations and secure appropriate remedies. \nLegal Analysis of the Incident On XX/XX/XXXX, post facto the initiation of the purchase agreement on XX/XX/XXXX, you acquired a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CarMax, XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The transaction involved a pecuniary down payment of {$3000.00} and subsequent payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), XXXX, of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This contractual engagement, however, was plagued with instances of dolus malus ( intentional fraud ), nonfeasance ( failure to act ), and culpa lata ( gross negligence ), culminating in material, financial, and reputational damage to you. \n\nXXXX. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Non-Disclosure ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMax engaged in XXXX XXXX by willfully misrepresenting the condition of the vehicle. They claimed the vehicle had a new battery and attributed all mileage to the previous owner, despite the vehicle being commodatum ( loaned out ) prior to the sale. This scienter ( knowledge of wrongdoing ) constitutes a prima facie case of fraud. The failure to disclose the vehicles loan history and the defective condition of key components, including the battery and tires, violated your right to bona fides ( good faith ) in the transaction. \n\nXXXX. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC 2-314 ), the seller is obligated to ensure that goods sold are fit for their ordinary purpose. The defects in the tires ( subject to manufacturer recall ), rims, paint, leather seat, and battery rendered the vehicle non conformis ( non-conforming goods ). The act of requiring you to pay for the recall repairs and failing to rectify these defects is contra legem ( against the law ). CarMaxs actions contravened its obligatio ex contractu ( obligation arising from the contract ). \n\nXXXX. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMaxs actions are actionable under Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ). Their mala fide ( bad faith ) conduct, including misrepresentations about the vehicles history, failure to disclose loaning, and subsequent inadequate repairs, violates the lex loci contractus ( law of the place where the contract was made ). These practices also fall under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce.\n\n4. Violation of Federal Recall Obligations ( Caveat Venditor ) Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ), dealers must repair or replace recalled components at no cost to the consumer. Charging for the replacement of defective tires ex delicto ( arising from a wrongful act ) is ultra vires ( beyond their authority ) and a clear infraction of federal law. This breach caused you pecuniary damnum ( financial loss ) and injuria ( injury ) by exposing you to unsafe conditions. \n\nXXXX. Negligent Repairs and Property Damage ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMaxs decision to apply paint to a damaged leather seat instead of performing proper repairs amounts to culpa lata ( gross negligence ). This action, actus reus ( a wrongful act ), caused further harm by damaging your uniforms and personal property. The dealerships res ipsa loquitur ( the thing speaks for itself ) failure to meet professional repair standards establishes their liability under Illinois tort law. \n\nXXXX. Breach of Contractual Obligations ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The purchase agreement required CarMax to deliver a vehicle consistent with its representations and suitable for its intended use. The inclusio unius est exclusio alterius ( inclusion of one thing excludes another ) doctrine applies, as the loaning out of the car was not disclosed nor included in the contract. The failure to honor their obligations constitutes a breach of contract, rendering CarMax reus ( liable party ).\n\nApplicable Violations and Laws Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC 2-314 ) Violation : Breach of implied warranty of merchantability ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : The vehicles defects violated its ordinary purpose, causing financial harm and loss of use.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ) Violation : Misrepresentation and nondisclosure ( XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : Deceptive practices led to monetary loss and reputational harm.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nNational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) Violation : Failure to honor recall obligations ( caveat venditor ).\n\nCause and Effect : Charging for recall repairs caused economic harm. \nCulpable Party : CarMax. \nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Violation : Unfair and deceptive acts in commerce ( XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : Misrepresentation and concealment undermined the integrity of the transaction.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Violation : Failure to investigate disputes and improper credit reporting ( negligentia ). \nCause and Effect : Credit damage due to XXXX  inaction. \nCulpable Party : XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRecommendations and Agencies to Alert Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : Report XXXX  for failing to provide proper notices and mishandling your account. \nIllinois Attorney General : File a complaint for violations of state consumer protection laws.\n\nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : Report CarMax for deceptive trade practices and warranty violations. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Alert them regarding CarMaxs failure to address recall repairs.\n\nLegal Counsel : Engage an attorney specializing in consumer rights and automotive fraud to initiate legal proceedings ( actio legis ) against CarMax and XXXX. \n\nConclusion This matter involves egregious violations of statutory and contractual obligations by CarMax and XXXX, including dolus malus, culpa lata, and breaches of federal and state consumer protection laws. Immediate legal and regulatory action is warranted to rectify the harm caused, seek damages, and enforce compliance with applicable statutes.\n\nDetailed Analysis of Violations 1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( UCC 2-314 ) The Uniform Commercial Code requires that goods sold by merchants meet a standard of merchantability, meaning they must be fit for ordinary purposes. CarMax violated this principium by delivering a vehicle with defective tires ( subject to manufacturer recall ), a faulty battery, damaged paint, and improperly repaired seats. By charging for repairs related to these defects, CarMax acted contra legem ( against the law ) and caused financial harm to you. This breach allows for remedies under UCC 2-714, which provides compensation for buyers of non-conforming goods.\n\n2. Deceptive Practices Under the FTC Act and State Law CarMaxs actions fall under XXXX XXXX, as their misrepresentation about the battery, undisclosed prior loaning of the vehicle, and failure to disclose mileage discrepancies violate Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ). Similarly, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ) prohibits mala fide actions like these. The misrepresentation of the vehicles condition constitutes an actus reus, an intentional act that caused pecuniary damnum ( financial loss ). \nXXXX. Violation of Federal Recall Obligations The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) mandates that recalled components such as tires be repaired at no cost to the consumer. By requiring you to pay for the recall-related repairs, CarMax acted ultra vires ( beyond its authority ). This failure not only endangered your safety but also imposed undue financial burdens, making CarMax liable for statutory penalties and damages under federal law.\n\n4. Negligent Repairs and Personal Property Damage The application of paint to repair the leather seat, rather than proper restoration, is a clear instance of culpa lata. This negligence caused direct harm to your uniforms, suits, and other personal property. Illinois tort law provides recourse for such damage, holding CarMax XXXX ( liable party ) for failing to exercise due care ( onus probandi ) during repairs. \nXXXX. Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation The consensualis ( consensual agreement ) between you and CarMax was fundamentally breached. The undisclosed loaning of the vehicle, failure to repair defects, and false representations about the battery constitute material breaches. These breaches undermine the pacta sunt servanda principle, which binds parties to the terms of their agreements. The resulting harm, including damage to your credit and professional life, supports claims for compensatory and punitive damages. \nXXXX. Violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX  failed to fulfill its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) by not investigating disputes and improperly reporting credit information. Per XXXX, their failure to notify you of payment responsibilities, combined with repossession actions, exacerbates your financial harm. This constitutes negligentia ( negligence ) and dolus incidentalis ( incidental fraud ). \n\nCause and Effect Analysis Cause : CarMaxs intentional misrepresentation ( dolus malus ) and failure to disclose material facts.\n\nEffect : Financial loss due to unnecessary repair costs, harm to your credit score, damage to your personal property, and reputational harm. \nCause : XXXX  failure to investigate disputes and provide proper payment information. \nEffect : Credit damage and repossession of the vehicle, impacting your employment and financial standing. \n\nAgencies to Notify and Steps to Take Regulatory Complaints Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : File a formal complaint against XXXX  for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and improper debt collection practices. \nIllinois Attorney General : Report CarMax under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for deceptive practices and breach of warranty. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Alert them to CarMaxs non-compliance with federal recall obligations.\n\nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : File a complaint citing violations of the FTC Act, including false advertising and failure to disclose loaning of the vehicle. \n\nLegal Counsel and Remedies Engage a consumer rights attorney to pursue claims including : Fraudulent Misrepresentation ( XXXX XXXX ) : Seek damages for financial loss, credit harm, and emotional distress. \nBreach of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Demand reimbursement for repair costs, damages to personal property, and other out-of-pocket expenses. \nNegligence ( XXXX XXXX ) : Pursue compensation for personal property damage due to improper repairs. \nViolation of Federal and State Laws : Seek statutory damages under UCC, FCRA, and consumer protection statutes.\n\nEquitable Remedies ( XXXX in XXXX ) : Demand the rescission of the sale contract, full reimbursement of payments, and removal of repossession from your credit report. \n\nConclusion CarMax and XXXX actions are riddled with dolus malus, culpa lata, and ultra vires conduct, violating federal, state, and contractual obligations. Through comprehensive legal action and regulatory reporting, you can seek restitution for the financial and reputational harm caused. These steps will enforce accountability, uphold your rights, and ensure proper remedies are pursued. \nRemedies and Consequences at Every Level To address the violations and harm caused by CarMax and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), the following remedies and consequences apply. Each level of remedycivil, statutory, regulatory, and equitableis tailored to the specific legal breaches. \n\nXXXX. Civil Remedies ( Contractual and Tort Violations ) Remedies Compensatory Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Compensation for actual financial losses, such as repair costs, uniforms damaged by improper seat repair, and payments made for defective parts like the tires and battery. \nWhy : The breaches of contract and negligence directly caused quantifiable monetary loss. \nExample : Reimbursement for costs incurred due to defective repairs and recall charges. \nConsequential Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Compensation for secondary damages, such as loss of income due to time off work or credit harm affecting future financial opportunities. \nWhy : CarMax and XXXX failures had a foreseeable impact on your financial stability and professional life. \nPunitive Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Damages intended to punish CarMax and XXXX  for egregious misconduct and deter similar actions. \nWhy : Intentional misrepresentation ( dolus malus ) and gross negligence ( culpa lata ) warrant punishment beyond compensatory damages. \nExample : A court may award significant punitive damages for CarMaxs deceptive practices.\n\nConsequences CarMax : Monetary liability for damages, adverse publicity, and potential class-action exposure if systemic issues are uncovered.\n\nXXXX  : Financial penalties and reputational harm for mishandling disputes and improper credit reporting.\n\n2. Statutory Remedies ( Federal and State Consumer Laws ) Remedies Damages for Breach of Consumer Protection Laws ( Remedium Legis ) : What : Statutory damages for violations of federal and state consumer laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. \nWhy : These laws entitle consumers to monetary relief when deceptive or unfair practices occur. \nExample : Penalties for charging for recall-related repairs and failure to disclose vehicle defects. \nAttorneys Fees and Costs ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Full reimbursement of legal fees incurred in pursuing claims under statutes like the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. \nWhy : Consumer protection statutes often include provisions for attorneys fees to encourage enforcement. \nCredit Report Correction ( XXXX in XXXX ) : What : XXXX  must correct negative entries on your credit report, removing repossession marks and false defaults. \nWhy : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires creditors to ensure accurate reporting.\n\nConsequences CarMax : Fines, mandated consumer reimbursements, and potential enforcement actions from agencies like the FTC. \nXXXX  :","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-04T14:52:42.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"60610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11460048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","date_received":"2025-01-10T05:20:12.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Summary of Violations : Unfair <em>Financing</em> Practices ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Description : CarMax provided <em>financing</em> terms for a XXXX XXXX XXXX without disclosing the financial impact of unresolved safety <em>recalls</em> and repair obligations that they failed to address. \nXXXX XXXX : CarMax knowingly withheld critical information about the vehicles defects and <em>recalls</em>, leading to unforeseen financial burdens post-purchase."]},"sort":[12.144838,"11460048"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10990051","_score":10.010148,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"To all parties of interest Among the Colorado Attorney General, CFPD and CFPB I am writing to request your assistance, guidance, intervention, support, and/ or any resources available to aid in resolving commercial consumer lending conflicts that have ensued with FNBO pertaining to an SBA business loan and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, pertaining to an agreement for the purchase of future receivables. Where both of these organizations performed many acts of deception, bad faith, breach, and potentially civil theft. Additionally, and if applicable, the commercial consumer bad faith of XXXX XXXX XXXX company along with multiple acts of fraud, deception, perjury, forgery, breach, malicious litigation, and potentially extortion that were performed throughout several partner disputes. These complex and unfortunate matters have collectively endangered my well-being and have placed me at imminent risk of homelessness and financial ruin. My home is being forced into foreclosure by FNBO with a foreclosure sale date scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. I am knocking on your door, having exhausted all available resources, including consulting with attorneys and seeking assistance from various organizations. I believe these matters fall within your jurisdiction and I am hopeful you can offer your support to ensure these matters are being handled ethically and equitably. I have been approved for limited-scope legal consultation with XXXX XXXX and XXXX  XXXX services through XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nI have spoken with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Director of Foreclosure Defense. XXXX advised me to seek to file an error, omissions, and lost mitigation complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). I have submitted a complaint but have yet to receive a response. This has prompted me to seek your assistance. I have also spoken with attorney XXXX XXXX, who enlisted himself to assist me with XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX should I need to. Both of these gentlemen have educated me and guided me within the reach of their scopes thus far. I have CC 'd both of these gentlemen simply to keep them in the loop so they may remain informed. Should either of them need to confer with your organization. \nAll of the claims I have made can be substantiated and verified. They have been meticulously documented in numerous audio recordings, written correspondence, loan documents, contracts, and agreements. I have provided a detailed narrative of the events that have transpired since XX/XX/XXXX, which have put me at imminent risk of homelessness and financial ruin. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, since XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I operated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Unfortunately, I was compelled to cease operations on XX/XX/XXXX due to the financial harm incurred through existing partner disputes, necessitating a reliance on XXXX for temporary bridge funding in XXXX of XXXX. Followed by a breakdown of my hot water heating system on XX/XX/XXXX, ceasing operations on that dayXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX did not pay this covered loss in bad faith. Then ultimately FNBO committed several acts of deception, offering unauthorized terms for the SBA I originally guaranteed and secured on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$180000.00}, forcing me to default for reasons not related to failure of payment. Then finally, the sale of my home, with no consideration of any other options, resolutions, or cure. \nXXXX appropriated unauthorized remittances intended for future receivables in response to the failure of my hot water system on XX/XX/XXXX. This resulted in a depleted cash reserve, including payments to the XXXX XXXX  XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX for sales and property taxes, leading to delinquent tax accounts. Additionally, the funds reserved for my employees payroll were also affected. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent my operating account negative after multiple pleas for them to cease their ACH attempts in the absence of generating sales. These occurrences are all breaches of our agreement according to the contract documents. \nXXXX is now actively pursuing a default judgment against me in California despite numerous attempts to communicate with them. During these communications, I have consistently provided evidence of the contractual language that irrefutably establishes their bad faith and multiple breaches. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX was dissolved prior to XXXX filing their claims. The dissolution clearly cures XXXX XXXX from default, according to the contract language. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO amended the original XXXX loan offering 6 months of interest-only payments and gave me a new 60-month term and stated I could retain a percentage of the sale of my home should I choose to sell it and utilize the equity to pay down a large percentage of the principal and use the remaining proceeds to resume business operations and correct the fallout that was occurring. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I met with FNBO to follow up on the outstanding business issues and discuss them in detail. I received a check from XXXX for {$17000.00} for equipment purchases, which required a co-signature from FNBO. My home was under contract and nearing its close. During the meeting, FNBO informed me that they would now take 100 % of the sale proceeds of my home because the business had been under-performing. However, the situation had improved significantly on XX/XX/XXXX, as we had secured funds and were receiving money from the sale that I had pledged {$80000.00} to the principal of {$160000.00} with 58 months remaining on the term. FNBO stated that I could write up an expense report, but there was no guarantee that I could recover any of the money from the sale. I expressed my disappointment and reliance on our previous agreement and the funds from the sale to move forward. Without these resources, I would not be able to proceed. \nI then informed FNBO that I should not accept the {$17000.00} check because without the proceeds from selling my home, I would not have the necessary operating capital to pay rent, property taxes, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Without correcting my DTI and creditworthiness, I would not be able to continue doing business. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and my revolving credit was maxed and imbalanced. The only way to rectify this situation was through good faith from XXXX or the sale of my home ; otherwise, bankruptcy was imminent. \nI was transparent and informed FNBO that I would need to borrow XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with approximately {$9000.00} of the {$17000.00} to cover XXXX rent and {$4500.00} in unpaid property taxes. Knowing all this information, FNBO agreed to sign the check, release the funds, and allow me to provide them with receipts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FNBO granted me permission to use the funds temporarily to cover expenses. \nFirst National Bank of Omaha ( FNBO ) repeatedly emphasized that as long as I continued to make loan payments, I was not obligated to sell my home. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  FNBO subsequently requested that I provide a cost report and urged me to minimize my expenses. They would then contact the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) to ascertain whether they could authorize the release of funds from the sale of my home. However, this was not a guarantee, and it would take approximately one week for FNBO to receive a response. \nMy expenses were due two days after our meeting, and my home was scheduled to close on XX/XX/XXXX. FNBO co-signed the check, making the {$17000.00} available to me. {$10000.00} of these funds were applied to the outstanding balance of a personal credit line I had on FNBOs credit card. I utilized these funds to reduce my debt-to-income ratio ( DTI ) and enable me to purchase the necessary equipment and make the required repairs that were allocated for once I resumed operations. The remaining {$7600.00} was allocated to cover outstanding expenses, equipment repairs, moving costs, and storage expenses. \nRegrettably, I had a partnership in the works and made every effort to restructure my entity to reflect this partnership appropriately. However, FNBO denied this opportunity on XX/XX/XXXX. FNBO informed me that a 100 % sole proprietor S-corp could not be modified, or they would forfeit their guarantee with the SBA. They also declined to consider refinancing the loan with my partners financial support without reviewing his personal financial statement ( PFS ), assessing his creditworthiness, or engaging in a conversation with anyone in underwriting or the SBA. The loan documents do not explicitly state that entity changes are not permitted ; they merely require an approved written request. \nInitially, FNBO presented several options but subsequently rejected each one. Consequently, I found myself with no alternative but to attempt to mitigate the potential consequences with the property owner of the commercial space I was leasing, where I also had a personal guarantee with nine years of leasing rights valued at approximately {$550000.00}. FNBO essentially demanded that I deceive the property owner and proceed without any guaranteed financial support. This entire situation was highly unethical, and I could not bear the thought of concealing these truths from all parties involved. \nDuring a subsequent conversation with the property owner, I was able to reach a resolution that relieved my personal guarantee by assisting in locating a qualified operator who desired to establish their own leasing terms with the property owner to secure the rents I had guaranteed. This was a consideration that had been discussed with the property owners since XX/XX/XXXX. The location is highly desirable, and numerous interested operators had contacted both me and the property owners during this extended period of downtime to negotiate leasing terms. I had also exhausted all options for a partnership with these parties or a sale, if that had been an option. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, an interested party committed to a partnership and pledged {$30000.00} in cash to initiate operations. I conveyed this information to FNBO, requesting a restructuring of the entity to reflect this new ownership interest. However, FNBO declined this option, citing potential loss of the SBA guarantee. They also stated that they would not consider refinancing the loan with new ownership interests and were unwilling to continue their business with me. \nWe subsequently discussed the status of my home sale and the costs report required for SBA consideration to alleviate some of the lien on my home. FNBO advised me to pursue financing through another bank, which was also an option available to me. Despite my efforts, FNBO appeared unwilling to offer a viable path forward, making it challenging for my business to continue. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I notified First National Bank of Omaha ( FNBO ) that I had vacated the commercial space and secured the assets. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FNBOs director of commercial lending, abruptly suspended my business accounts without prior notice or communication. Notably, my loan payments were current at the time. There was no indication of default or any suggestion that the loan was in any way delinquent. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO met with me at the storage facility to confirm the location of the assets. FNBO subsequently advised me to sell my home, after which they would grant me time to sell the assets as close to market value as possible. I reiterated my intention to repay the loan in accordance with the agreed-upon terms and clarified that the loan was not in default or delinquent. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX initiated an Automated Clearing House ( ACH ) payment of {$15000.00} to XXXXXXXX XXXX FNBO business checking account ending in XXXX for lost business income. FNBO did not require my signature for the lost business income, as they had no liens on my income or any orders for garnishment. However, FNBO diverted those funds, along with the {$10000.00} I had paid to FNBOs credit card ( CC ) account without my knowledge. Notably, FNBO did not provide any notice of this action. Consequently, my XXXX XXXX accounts became negative due to the recalled funds without my knowledge. This action severely damaged my creditworthiness, rendering me unable to pay for or manage my business and living expenses. As a result, I am currently experiencing dire circumstances and am urgently seeking to avoid homelessness. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I transmitted a written intent to repay my loan to FNBO via email to the director of commercial lending. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO dispatched a demand letter demanding full payment. I then began correspondence with XXXX XXXX of FNBO. \nI reported all of these facts to XXXX XXXX, also informing her I had the audio recordings and correspondence to establish the unethical nature of these circumstances. XXXX did not care to evaluate the legitimacy of my allegations and proceeded to bully me and financially cripple me to submit to her course of action. She ultimately took possession of the business assets, liquidated them, and has provided no documentation regarding the sale of the equipment since. \nI am in desperate need of support or any sort of intervention you may be able to offer urgently. Please feel free to contact me directly via phone, text or email at your soonest convenience. I will pause my calendar to accommodate any availability the Attorney General, XXXX, of CFPB has to speak and or meet with me.. Thank you for your valued time and consideration. It is genuinely appreciated. I have volumes of additional documentation and correspondence that I am able to provide with the ability to share a file exceeding XXXX XXXX \n\n\n\n\n\n\nWith XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-02T20:32:15.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"80504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10990051","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA","date_received":"2024-12-02T19:53:58.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consequently, my XXXX XXXX accounts became negative due to the <em>recalled</em> funds without my knowledge. This action severely damaged my creditworthiness, <em>rendering</em> me unable to pay for or manage my business and living expenses. As a result, I am currently experiencing dire circumstances and am urgently seeking to avoid homelessness. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I transmitted a written intent to repay my loan to FNBO via email to the director of commercial lending."]},"sort":[10.010148,"10990051"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":3,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":3}]}},"product":{"doc_count":3,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":3,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":3,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":3}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":3,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":3,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":3}]}},"company":{"doc_count":3,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":3,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":3,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":3,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}