CarMax Lawsuit Alleges Dealer Fails to Perform ‘Rigorous’ 125+ Point Inspections as Advertised

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

CarMax Auto Superstores faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the auto retailer has misled consumers by falsely claiming to perform a “rigorous” 125+ point inspection on every car it sells.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 21-page CarMax class action lawsuit contends that the company fills out vehicle inspection reports and falsely certifies that it performs a 125+ point inspection on each vehicle “in order to make sales.” The case claims consumers would not have bought their vehicles from CarMax had they known the inspections were “not actually being done.”

“Defendant took advantage of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers unfairly and unlawfully,” the suit alleges.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, a Kern County, California resident, purchased a 2013 Lexus RX350 F-Sport from CarMax last year. Though the vehicle arrived at the car dealer two days after purchase, the company held it for five days, purportedly, as the plaintiff was told, to perform the advertised 125+ point inspection and deep clean on the car, the filing says.

When the plaintiff picked up the vehicle, he observed that none of the passenger door locks were working, that the car was “filthy and had not been cleaned,” and that there were “deep scratches in the paint,” the case claims.

Though CarMax agreed to fix these issues immediately, after 11 days the paint was not repaired as promised, the filing states. Two days after driving the Lexus off the lot, the plaintiff noticed a shudder as the transmission shifted during operation, and the left door of the vehicle exhibited a loud squeaking noise, the case claims.

Days later, the plaintiff was informed the transmission needed to be replaced, yet CarMax apparently could not find a replacement transmission and forced the consumer to wait, with no estimate on when his vehicle would be fixed, the complaint continues.

By the end of October 2023, the plaintiff had been without the vehicle he bought for almost a month, and by the last day for the consumer to return the car if he did not want to keep it, he still had no estimate on when it would be fixed, the lawsuit says. The plaintiff opted to return the vehicle to CarMax and subsequently bought an Acura RDX from the defendant, which again claimed the vehicle would undergo a 125+ point inspection, the complaint shares.

Upon returning home with the vehicle, the plaintiff discovered the spare tire sold with the car was “completely flat,” and days later noticed that the radiator was leaking antifreeze, the passenger window was making noise, and the driver’s side visor was “fall[ing] off the vehicle,” the lawsuit says.

According to the case, it took two weeks for CarMax to repair a radiator hole in the plaintiff’s Acura, and on the day the man picked up the vehicle, he noticed the radiator was leaking yet again. Moreover, the car’s battery died while it was in CarMax’s possession, the suit notes.

Per the suit, the window operation, radiator, spare tire, battery and visor are all items specifically listed as part of CarMax’s 125+ point inspection.

From there, after the defendant bought back the Acura and “[apologized] profusely,” the plaintiff bought a third vehicle from CarMax, a 2015 Mercedes GLA 350 4Matic, the case says. Per the suit, when the man picked up the car, he noticed that the door strut/motor was making a noise, and that a second key for the vehicle was missing. Days later, the car’s sunroof broke and would not close, and the plaintiff noticed the vehicle’s driver’s side door weather seal was damaged, the complaint relays.

Ultimately, the Mercedes the plaintiff bought from CarMax was held by the company for more than 50 days, “with no end in sight.”

“Again, each of these issues should have been caught/repaired if a 125+ inspection was actually done, which it could not have been, given the aforementioned facts,” the filing stresses, alleging CarMax’s “125+ point inspection” promise amounts to “a common scheme to mislead consumers.”

The CarMax lawsuit looks to cover all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought a vehicle from CarMax that was advertised to have undergone a 125+ point inspection.

Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action rebates page full of open class action settlements.