'I Feel Robbed': Clients Await Compensation From Santander's $550 Million Settlement With States
"The interest is more than the principal," one borrower said. "I want to get out of the contract."
June 23, 2020 at 03:52 PM
4 minute read
Lakeland, Florida, resident Megan Moon had trouble qualifying for a vehicle loan before she became a client of Dallas-based Santander Consumer USA Inc., the nation's largest subprime auto financing company.
But that joy turned to despair after the company repossessed her truck for nonpayment.
And now Moon is among thousands of borrowers who say the company misled them with financing they couldn't afford. They're now awaiting compensation after Santander reached a $550 million settlement with Connecticut and 33 other states to reimburse consumers for alleged deceptive loan practices nationwide.
'Up to Santander'
Moon said she called the Florida Attorney General's Office Tuesday for an update, but staff there urged her to be persistent with follow-ups to the company. She said she called the state after Santander employees told her, "This is all very new to us and we will be in touch."
While California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and 29 other states reached the settlement, it falls on Santander to administer the agreement.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said his office has fielded calls from about 60 residents since the settlement was reached in May. He urged Santander customers to visit www.santandermultistateagsettlement.com, or call 1-800-253-2171. If they have significant problems and feel like they've been mistreated, they can then call the attorney general in their state.
Read more: Santander Reaches $550 Million Settlement With 34 States Over Alleged Deceptive Auto Loan Practices
"We don't have the money, or the ability to provide restitution," Tong said. "That is up to Santander, according to the terms of the agreement."
In a statement Tuesday, Santander referred all comment to its May 19 announcement on the settlement. It declined to comment further.
"Santander Consumer's voluntary agreement with the attorneys general resolves a legacy underwriting issue stemming from an investigation that commenced in 2014, and is another key milestone in addressing issues related to that time period," the company said in the May statement. "We are pleased to put this matter behind us."
'They gave me the keys'
Meanwhile, Moon's story is similar to thousands across the country who dealt with Santander. She said she purchased a used 2009 F150 truck, and was thrilled when Santander signed off on a loan.
"I was very surprised since I was denied by a lot of creditors," Moon said Tuesday. "They gave me a 20% interest rate. You usually have to show proof of income and they'd call your place of employment. I don't even think they called my job to verify I had a job."
Moon continued: "They wanted $2,200 down and I gave it to them, and they gave me the keys. I tried to be responsible and tried to rebuild my credit, but that wasn't the case. I couldn't make ends meet half the time as I was also a full-time college student. Payments were $360 a month and, as a single mom, it was often hard to make the payments."
Moon said she relayed her concerns to the company, but claimed it was to no avail.
"They wouldn't work with me, and I was going deeper and deeper into debt," she said. "I stopped making payments in November."
Then, Moon said, the company repossessed the vehicle on June 17, after she'd repaid about $7,500 over two and a half years.
"I feel kind of robbed," she said. "I am flexible in that I'd like either the money or the car. I am trying to show a good-faith effort."
Interest higher than principal?
Patricia Perez, a Marietta, Georgia, resident, had a similar situation.
Perez purchased a used 2016 Jeep Patriot. She agreed to repay $36,504—or $507 a month for 72 months—after 23% interest.
"The interest is more than the principal," she said. "I want to get out of the contract. I feel like I was taken advantage of."
The agreement between Santander and the states requires the company to adhere to certain provisions, including knowing a customer's ability to repay the loans. It also prohibits Santander from lending to consumers who will have little or no money left after paying for housing and other expenses.
Related stories:
Santander Reaches $550 Million Settlement With 34 States Over Alleged Deceptive Auto Loan Practices
State and Santander Reach $2.9M Settlement Over Repossessed Cars
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllK&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
3 minute readEleven Attorneys General Say No to 'Unconstitutional' Hijacking of State, Local Law Enforcement
3 minute read'Battle of the Experts': Bridgeport Jury Awards Defense Verdict to Stamford Hospital
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 2Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 3Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 4Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
- 5Meet the SEC's New Interim General Counsel
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250