AmeriCredit Lawsuit: Settlements, TCPA, and Repossession Cases

AmeriCredit Financial Services, now doing business as GM Financial, has been sued repeatedly over how it repossesses vehicles, collects deficiency balances, calls borrowers, and treats servicemembers. The AmeriCredit lawsuit history includes a $388 million California settlement over defective repossession notices, a Missouri class action that produced a $113.9 million trial judgment before being reversed on appeal, a multi-million-dollar Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement over robocalls, a Department of Justice consent order covering illegal repossessions of servicemembers’ vehicles, and a Massachusetts state enforcement action over loan-servicing practices. Federal prosecutors have also examined the company’s subprime securitizations.

The $388 Million California Repossession Settlement

The largest known payout in the company’s litigation history came in 2012, when GM Financial agreed to pay $388 million to resolve a California lawsuit. The claim was that the company violated California law by failing to properly notify thousands of borrowers before selling their repossessed vehicles.{¹} The settlement size reflected both the volume of repossessions and the alleged notice deficiencies underlying them.

The Missouri Bell Class Action

The most detailed picture of how repossession-notice litigation works against the company comes from AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Bell, a Missouri case that has run for a decade. It began in September 2015 when GM Financial sued Nicole M. Bell for an $8,251.80 deficiency balance after her vehicle was repossessed and sold in 2012. Bell filed a counterclaim on behalf of a class of Missouri consumers whose vehicles GM Financial repossessed after January 30, 2010, alleging that the company’s pre-sale and post-sale notices violated the Uniform Commercial Code.{²}{³}

Bell raised six alleged defects in the notices GM Financial sent to borrowers:

Ambiguous sale date, using language like “after 10 days” rather than a specific date.
A misleading description of deficiency liability, suggesting the sale could “increase” the amount owed.
Post-default interest that Missouri law allegedly prohibits.
Repossession expenses inflated by about $92.
Classification of dealer-only auctions as private sales rather than public.
Notices that were not properly signed or authenticated.

The trial court found for Bell on two of the six claims: the sale-date language was ambiguous, and the deficiency-liability description was misleading. GM Financial prevailed on the other four. In November 2023, the court issued a fifth amended judgment calculating aggregate statutory damages of roughly $140.6 million, applying a deficiency-balance offset of about $28.9 million, and arriving at a net class award near $113.9 million. The court also barred GM Financial from collecting deficiency judgments from class members going forward.{⁴}

In October 2024, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed. It held that GM Financial had strictly complied with the UCC: the private-sale classification was correct, “after 10 days” was sufficient notice of timing, the description of potential increases in debt was not misleading, post-default interest was permitted under Missouri law, the expense discrepancy was not unreasonable, and letterhead plus contact information supplied adequate authentication. The case was remanded for further proceedings.{²}

The trajectory of Bell matters for anyone facing a similar deficiency suit. A trial court awarded over $113 million based on notice defects; an appellate court then found those same notices legally sufficient. The theories still exist, but so does the risk that they will not hold up on appeal.

The Robocall (TCPA) Settlement

In Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, borrowers alleged that the company placed calls to consumer cell phones using automatic dialing systems or prerecorded voice messages without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The class covered U.S. residents who received such calls between December 30, 2007, and November 14, 2014.{⁵}

AmeriCredit settled for between $6.5 million and $8.5 million while denying wrongdoing. Class members who filed claims without call documentation received up to $30 per cell phone number. Those who could document call volume received tiered amounts: up to $60 for two to five calls, up to $90 for six to ten, up to $120 for eleven to fifteen, and up to $150 for more than fifteen. Checks went out beginning in July 2016.{⁶}

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Consent Order

In October 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that GM Financial would pay more than $3.5 million to resolve allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleged that since 2015 the company had unlawfully repossessed 71 vehicles from SCRA-protected servicemembers without required court orders, improperly denied or mishandled more than 1,000 lease-termination requests, and charged improper early-termination fees while failing to provide timely refunds of advance lease payments.{⁷}

Under the consent order, each of the 71 servicemembers whose vehicles were illegally repossessed received at least $10,000. Servicemembers charged improper termination fees were entitled to a refund plus damages equal to three times the fee or $500, whichever was greater. Those whose termination requests were wrongly denied received refunds plus up to $5,000 in additional damages. GM Financial paid a $65,480 civil penalty, was required to repair affected servicemembers’ credit, train employees on SCRA compliance, and adopt new policies.{⁷}

Massachusetts Attorney General Settlement

In March 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office reached a settlement with GM Financial through an assurance of discontinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court. The state alleged that the company failed to pay legally required interest on delayed refunds of Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) enrollment fees and failed to provide sufficient information to consumers after vehicle repossessions. GM Financial agreed to pay more than $1.8 million, with over 2,000 Massachusetts consumers identified as potentially eligible for restitution.{⁸}

Federal Subprime Securitization Inquiry

In August 2014, federal prosecutors led by Preet Bharara, then the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, opened a civil inquiry into subprime auto lending. GM Financial received a DOJ subpoena seeking documents on the origination and securitization of subprime loan contracts dating back to 2007. Investigators were examining whether the lender fully disclosed borrower creditworthiness to investors in loan-backed securities, raising potential violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act.{⁹} The inquiry sat inside a broader concern about the subprime auto market, which had grown to $145.6 billion in loans in the first quarter of 2014, up 15% year over year. No public resolution of the inquiry is reflected in the available record.

Credit Reporting Class Actions

GM Financial has also been named in credit-reporting class actions. In December 2019, a class action was filed against GM Financial and Experian alleging failure to investigate and correct duplicate items on consumer credit reports. In January 2020, another was filed against GM Financial, Equifax, and Bank of America, alleging failures to note disputed accounts and to properly investigate consumer disputes.{¹⁰}

If AmeriCredit or GM Financial Has Sued You

The most common lawsuit these cases point back to is not a class action but a routine deficiency suit: the company repossesses a vehicle, sells it for less than the loan balance, and then sues the borrower for the difference. Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a lender must provide specific pre-sale and post-sale notices before collecting a deficiency. The method of sale, the timing, and the calculation of the amount owed all have to meet statutory requirements. If they do not, borrowers can raise UCC noncompliance as a defense and, depending on state law, potentially block the deficiency claim entirely.{²}

Borrowers sued by AmeriCredit or GM Financial have challenged notices for vague sale dates, misleading descriptions of deficiency liability, inflated repossession expenses, and improper interest charges. Bell shows both sides of that strategy. Missouri’s trial court awarded more than $113 million to a class on two of those theories; the appellate court then held the same notices satisfied the UCC. The defenses remain available, but their strength turns on the exact language of the notice, the governing state’s version of the UCC, and how each court reads them.

1
Law360. GM Financial Pays $388M to Settle Calif. Repo Suit
2
Findlaw. AmeriCredit Financial Services v. Bell
3
GM Notice Class. AmeriCredit Financial Services v. Bell Class Notice
4
Your Missouri Judges. AmeriCredit v. Bell, Circuit Court of St. Louis County
5
Top Class Actions. AmeriCredit TCPA Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed
6
Top Class Actions. AmeriCredit Financial Services TCPA Class Action Settlement
7
U.S. Department of Justice. GM Financial to Pay Over $3.5 Million to Resolve Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Claims
8
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. GM Financial to Pay More Than $1.8 Million Relating to Its Auto Loan Servicing Practices
9
The New York Times DealBook. Focusing on GM Unit, U.S. Starts Civil Inquiry of Subprime Car Lending
10
ClassAction.org. GM Financial Class Action Lawsuits