Lawsuits against Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, the loan-servicing arm of DriveTime, have accused the company of charging illegal fees, applying interest rates above state caps, mishandling repossessions, and harassing borrowers during collections. Results have been uneven. A Pennsylvania class action over “pay-to-pay” fees was dismissed with prejudice in early 2026 on undisclosed terms; a California couple recovered $175,000 through arbitration over out-of-state repossession practices; and federal debt-collection claims have repeatedly failed because courts treat Bridgecrest as a creditor rather than a third-party debt collector.
The Pennsylvania Class Action Over Fees and Interest
In February 2023, Pennsylvania resident Mathew Caughey sued Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation and Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC in Allegheny County. Bridgecrest removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where it was docketed as Case No. 2:23-cv-00264.1Justia Dockets. Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
The complaint made two core allegations. First, that Bridgecrest charged Pennsylvania borrowers interest above the state’s Consumer Credit Code caps of 18% for new and newer used vehicles and 21% for older used vehicles. Caughey’s 2019 contract for a used Ford Escape carried a 23.28% APR.2ClassAction.org. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Pay-to-Pay Fees in Pennsylvania Second, that Bridgecrest’s $3.95 “money transfer fee,” billed each time a customer paid by phone, was not among the charges Pennsylvania law authorizes. Caughey said he was hit with the fee 12 times in 2019 and 2020.3GovInfo. Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Report and Recommendation
The suit brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), the Loan Interest and Protection Law, and unjust enrichment, on behalf of all Pennsylvania residents charged similar fees or above-limit interest within the limitations period.2ClassAction.org. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Pay-to-Pay Fees in Pennsylvania
How the Case Ended
On February 14, 2025, a magistrate judge issued a mixed Report and Recommendation on Bridgecrest’s motion to dismiss. Caughey had standing and his UTPCPL claim could proceed, but the Loan Interest and Protection Law claim failed because that statute does not apply to motor vehicle installment sales, and the unjust enrichment claim failed because a written contract governed the parties.3GovInfo. Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Report and Recommendation District Judge David S. Cercone adopted the recommendation on March 3, 2025.4PACER Monitor. Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
The case never reached class certification. On February 16, 2026, Caughey filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and the docket closed two days later. The terms are not public.4PACER Monitor. Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation For Pennsylvania consumers who paid the fees or above-cap interest, no class recovery followed, and the individual UTPCPL theory that survived dismissal was never tested at trial.
California Repossession Practices: The Fernandez Case
A separate line of litigation attacked how Bridgecrest handled repossessed vehicles for California borrowers. In Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC (Case No. 5:19-cv-00877, C.D. Cal.), consumers alleged that Bridgecrest hauled cars repossessed in California to Las Vegas and then required borrowers to travel to Nevada at their own expense to reinstate or redeem the contracts, effectively neutralizing the reinstatement right California law gives them.5Trueblood Law Firm. Bridgecrest Financial Auto Repossession Litigation
The plaintiffs also challenged Bridgecrest’s post-repossession notices. California law requires nine specific written disclosures after a repossession. The complaint alleged Bridgecrest’s notices fell short and that giving reinstatement terms over the phone rather than in writing could bar the company from collecting any deficiency balance.5Trueblood Law Firm. Bridgecrest Financial Auto Repossession Litigation
Bridgecrest denied the allegations and pushed the dispute into arbitration. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit sided with Bridgecrest in 2022, reversing a lower-court denial of arbitration. The court reasoned that the injunctive relief the Fernandezes wanted was “private” because it would benefit only Bridgecrest customers, so California’s rule against arbitrating public-injunction claims did not apply.6Midpage. Antholine Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Co. The arbitration closed in August 2023 with Bridgecrest agreeing to pay the Fernandezes $175,000, waive any deficiency balance, and request deletion of the tradeline from their credit reports.7Jus Mundi. Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Company LLC, Final Award
Why FDCPA Cases Against Bridgecrest Keep Failing
Borrowers complaining about aggressive calls or inaccurate credit reporting often reach for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Against Bridgecrest, that route has been a dead end. Courts have held repeatedly that Bridgecrest is a creditor collecting its own debts, not a third-party debt collector covered by the statute.
In Parker v. Bridgecrest Credit Co. (D.S.C. 2021), a borrower alleged after-hours calls and profane language; the court dismissed the case on that threshold ground.8CaseMine. Parker v. Bridgecrest Credit Co. In Coe v. Bridgecrest/DriveTime (E.D. Pa. 2023), a pro se complaint was dismissed as conclusory on Bridgecrest’s debt-collector status.9vLex. Coe v. Bridgecrest/Drivetime
The most detailed ruling is Massey-Campbell v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation (E.D. Pa., October 2025). Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro dismissed the plaintiff’s FDCPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and breach-of-contract claims. On the FDCPA count, the court applied the statutory exclusion for entities servicing debts that were not in default when they were acquired. Because the complaint never alleged the loan was in default when Bridgecrest took over servicing, Bridgecrest fell outside the statute. The retail installment contract also permitted assignment, so ordinary servicing by a third party was not a breach.10CaseMine. Massey-Campbell v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation11Justia. Massey-Campbell v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Memorandum
The practical takeaway is that state consumer-protection statutes, not the FDCPA, tend to be the workable path against Bridgecrest for calls, fees, and reporting complaints.
The Arbitration Clause in Bridgecrest Contracts
Almost any suit against Bridgecrest runs into an arbitration clause in the underlying installment contract, and courts have generally enforced it. The Missouri Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation v. Donaldson (consolidated with Bridgecrest v. Jones) is the leading example.
The dispute started after Bridgecrest sued three borrowers for deficiency balances following repossession and auction. The borrowers filed UCC-based counterclaims for deceptive practices. Bridgecrest moved to send those counterclaims to arbitration; the trial court and Court of Appeals said no. On July 12, 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding the arbitration agreements enforceable. Consideration for the whole installment contract also supported the embedded arbitration clause, and carving out “self-help” remedies like repossession did not make the clause unconscionably one-sided because both sides could still compel arbitration on other disputes.12FindLaw. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation v. Donaldson
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Fernandez pushed in the same direction, sending California repossession claims to arbitration on the ground that the relief sought was private rather than public.6Midpage. Antholine Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Co. Together the two decisions mean that if you sign a Bridgecrest contract and later want to sue, expect the case to be steered out of court and into individual arbitration. Fernandez shows that outcome does not have to mean losing; it does mean giving up the class device.
The DriveTime CFPB Penalty
Bridgecrest was created in 2016 when DriveTime rebranded its servicing division,13Auto Remarketing. DriveTime Rebrands Servicing Division, Launching Bridgecrest which makes the parent company’s regulatory record part of the backdrop. In November 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered DriveTime to pay an $8 million civil penalty over collection abuses and credit-reporting failures.14Auto Remarketing. DriveTime Responds to $8M Fine From CFPB
The CFPB found that DriveTime had harassed borrowers at work, kept calling personal references after being told to stop, and dialed wrong numbers for extended periods. The bureau also determined that DriveTime furnished inaccurate repossession and delinquency information for roughly 350,000 accounts and failed to properly investigate consumer disputes. The consent order required DriveTime to end the harassing calls, build an audit program for data accuracy, correct the bad credit reporting, and notify affected consumers of their right to free credit reports. DriveTime did not admit or deny the findings.15Auto Finance News. DriveTime to Pay $8 Million Penalty Over Collection Calls
No comparable federal enforcement action against Bridgecrest itself appears in the record. Consumers with complaints have been left to pursue private suits, most of which end in arbitration.