Lawsuits and regulatory actions against DriveTime and its in-house lender Bridgecrest have centered on five recurring problems: abusive debt collection, inaccurate credit reporting, a mandatory arbitration clause that limits your ability to sue, undisclosed payment fees, and misrepresentations about vehicle condition. The most significant action came from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2014, and new claims, including a current mass arbitration over hidden processing fees, continue to accumulate.
The CFPB Enforcement Action
On November 19, 2014, the CFPB issued a consent order against DriveTime Automotive Group and its then-finance arm, DT Acceptance Corporation. It was the Bureau’s first enforcement action against a buy-here, pay-here auto dealer.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB Takes First Action Against Buy-Here, Pay-Here Auto Dealer
The Bureau found DriveTime engaged in unfair debt collection. Collectors continued calling borrowers at work after being told to stop, kept calling personal references after those individuals asked the calls to end, and repeatedly dialed wrong numbers for months without correcting the records. Some consumers reported being threatened with job loss or reprimanded by employers over the calls.2Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consent Order, File No. 2014-CFPB-0017
The CFPB also found DriveTime violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies about repossession timing and dates of first delinquency, making repossessions appear more recent than they were. The company received about 22,000 consumer disputes per year but had only two employees assigned to handle them.2Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consent Order, File No. 2014-CFPB-0017
Penalties and Required Reforms
DriveTime paid an $8 million civil money penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Enforcement Action: DriveTime The order also required the company to build a master do-not-call list tied to its dialer, honor oral and written stop-calling requests, stop contacting third-party references except to obtain location information under limited circumstances, halt reporting of repossession data until it could verify accuracy, run monthly audits, correct inaccurate records with the credit bureaus, and notify affected consumers so they could pull free credit reports. An independent consultant reviewed collection and credit reporting practices, and DriveTime submitted to CFPB supervisory authority for five years.2Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consent Order, File No. 2014-CFPB-0017 The CFPB’s administrative docket now lists the case as expired and terminated.4Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Administrative Adjudication Docket: DriveTime
North Carolina Settlement
In August 2017, the North Carolina Attorney General reached a separate settlement with DriveTime and DT Acceptance. The state found the company misrepresented its pre-sale inspection process and warranty coverage and used aggressive collection tactics. DriveTime paid $79,933.70 in refunds to eligible North Carolina consumers and agreed to stop overstating its inspection and warranty processes and to stop contacting consumers at work after being asked to stop.5North Carolina Department of Justice. Attorney General Josh Stein Returns Nearly $2,480,000
The Arbitration Clause and Your Ability to Sue
DriveTime’s retail installment contracts contain a mandatory arbitration clause that funnels most disputes to the American Arbitration Association instead of court. Whether it is enforceable against you depends on which state’s law applies.
In 2016, the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Pool v. Drivetime Car Sales Co. called the clause “impermissibly one-sided and substantively unconscionable.” The court found it pushed consumers’ likely claims into arbitration while preserving DriveTime’s right to repossess and sell vehicles without arbitrating, and that even the small-claims carve-out could be defeated because DriveTime could counter by compelling arbitration and shifting filing fees onto the buyer.6CaseMine. Pool v. Drivetime Car Sales Co., No. 33,894
In July 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court reached the opposite result. In Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation v. Donaldson, all justices agreed the clause was conscionable, part of a single integrated contract supported by adequate consideration, and did not let Bridgecrest unilaterally escape its own duty to arbitrate.7FindLaw. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation v. Donaldson, Nos. SC 99269, SC 99270 In Logan-Worsham v. Drivetime Automotive Group in the Middle District of Florida, a federal judge granted DriveTime’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and later dismissed it with prejudice after arbitration concluded.8PlainSite. Logan-Worsham v. Drivetime Automotive Group, Inc.
The practical takeaway: if you’re a DriveTime customer thinking about suing, expect DriveTime to move to compel arbitration, and expect that motion to succeed in most states. Class actions and jury trials are usually off the table.
TCPA Robocall Class Action
In May 2022, a plaintiff named Wheeldon filed a proposed class action against DriveTime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing prerecorded telemarketing calls to cell phones without prior written consent. He reported at least five such calls in March 2022 and sought to represent a class covering the prior four years.9ClassAction.org. DriveTime Auto Group Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls Court records show the case was terminated in July 2023; the resolution is not public.10CourtListener. Wheeldon v. DriveTime Automotive Group Incorporated
The Hidden Payment Fee Mass Arbitration
The law firm Milberg LLC is investigating DriveTime and Bridgecrest over allegations that the companies charged undisclosed processing or convenience fees when borrowers made loan payments online or by phone, potentially violating the federal Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.11ClassAction.org. Illegal Hidden Junk Fees Because of the arbitration clause discussed above, the effort is structured as a mass arbitration: individual claims filed and coordinated together rather than a single class action. As of early 2026, attorneys are in the intake and evidence-gathering phase and are asking borrowers who made at least one online payment through the Bridgecrest portal for documentation.12Class Action U. DriveTime Automotive Group Mass Arbitration
Repossession and FDCPA Claims
Individual borrowers have sued Bridgecrest over how repossessions were carried out. In Coe v. Bridgecrest/Drivetime, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2023, the plaintiff alleged Bridgecrest hired a third-party firm to seize his vehicle without adequate notice and made misleading representations during the repossession. A federal judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice in October 2023 for failure to state a plausible claim but granted leave to amend.13vLex. Coe v. Bridgecrest/Drivetime, Civil Action No. 23-3033
Complaints About Vehicle Condition
A separate stream of grievances has nothing to do with financing. The Better Business Bureau lists 764 complaints against DriveTime over the most recent three-year period, and 606 of them are categorized as service or repair issues.14Better Business Bureau. DriveTime Complaints
Recent filings show the pattern. One buyer said a 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport sold as having a “clean vehicle history” was later found during a trade-in inspection to have had a prior airbag deployment. Another was told a car had one minor accident; a later report showed four. A third said a sales manager described a 2019 Lincoln Navigator as having a “new transmission,” which a third-party mechanic contradicted; that buyer filed a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act seeking to rescind the contract.14Better Business Bureau. DriveTime Complaints DriveTime’s responses in many documented cases were standardized notices stating the complaint was “currently under review.”
Who You’re Actually Dealing With
DriveTime and Bridgecrest are related but distinct. In 2016, DriveTime rebranded its servicing division from DriveTime Acceptance Corp. to Bridgecrest Acceptance, positioning it as a licensed third-party servicer handling customer service, collections, repossession, and vehicle remarketing across a portfolio of more than 220,000 accounts.15Auto Remarketing. DriveTime Rebrands Servicing Division, Launching Bridgecrest If you bought your car at a DriveTime lot, your loan payments, collection calls, and any repossession will most likely come from Bridgecrest, and both companies appear as defendants in the actions above. When you’re deciding who to name in a complaint or dispute, that distinction matters.