— A CarMax class action lawsuit alleges the company does not perform a 125+ point inspection before a vehicle is sold.
The class action lawsuit includes:
“All consumers, who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, purchased a vehicle from CARMAX that was advertised to have undergone a 125+ point inspection.”
The class action was filed by California plaintiff Douglas Pilcher who alleges CarMax failed to perform the 125 point inspection on not just one car, but three.
The lawsuit alleges CarMax sold about 810,000 used vehicles nationwide for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2023, with the average price of a CarMax used vehicle a minimum of $28,000.
The plaintiff asserts the 125 point inspection is very important to him because he's purchasing a used vehicle that must be dependable.
But according to the class action, CarMax falsely advertises that a used vehicle goes through a “rigorous 125 point inspection” when, according to the plaintiff, the inspection is not performed.
The plaintiff contends consumers would not purchase the used vehicles without the “rigorous" 125 point inspections.
"In fact, CARMAX was filling out inspection reports and certifying the inspections were done, when they were not completed, in order to make sales." — CarMax class action lawsuit
CarMax 125+ Point Inspection Lawsuit — The Plaintiff
Plaintiff Douglas Pilcher purchased a 2013 Lexus RX350 F-Sport which was held for five days because CarMax was supposed to be doing the 125 point inspection and a “deep clean” of the Lexus.
In 2023, the plaintiff was told his vehicle was ready for pickup and the 125+ point inspection and “deep clean” had been completed.
The plaintiff says he went to get his Lexus and allegedly realized none of the passenger door locks were functioning, the car was filthy and had not been cleaned and the plaintiff claims there were deep scratches in the paint.
The lawsuit says CarMax agreed they would fix all the issues “right away,” and 11 days later the door locks had been repaired but the paint hadn't been fixed.
According to the plaintiff, CarMax agreed to fix the paint later, so he finalized his purchase and drove the Lexus off the lot.
Two days later, on September 25, 2023, the plaintiff noticed a shudder as the transmission shifted while driving and he also heard the left rear door loudly squeaking.
He says he made a repair appointment for October 2023 and dropped the Lexus off at CarMax only to be told two hours later the vehicle had to be sent somewhere else for transmission repairs.
CarMax allegedly said they would update him but 10 days later he had not heard a word from the company.
Pilcher says he finally called CarMax and was told the transmission had to be replaced but one couldn't be found and he would have to wait.
On the last day the plaintiff had to return the vehicle if he didn't want to keep it, the plaintiff told CarMax to keep the Lexus and he would purchase an Acura RDX instead.
The class action lawsuit says the Acura was advertised to be all-wheel-drive and "represented as having completed the 125+ point inspection and deep clean."
However, the plaintiff says the backup camera was cloudy, and CarMax allegedly promised to call him to schedule an appointment.
The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff drove the vehicle home only to find the spare tire was completely flat, and over the coming days he noticed the radiator was leaking antifreeze, the passenger window was making noise and the driver-side side visor fell off.
"On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff waits three hours at his appointment at CARMAX before he is told that the camera had to be replaced, the window motor has to be fixed, and that the radiator has a hole in it. It subsequently takes two weeks for them to repair the radiator hole, and Plaintiff picks up his vehicle on November 28, 2023." — CarMax class action lawsuit
The plaintiff alleges he again saw the radiator was leaking, so he made another appointment with CarMax but he alleges while they had it the battery died. CarMax allegedly replaced the radiator again and also replaced the battery.
Now in December 2023, the plaintiffs says he noticed an Acura RDX vehicle which belonged to a neighbor had an "All Wheel Drive emblem on the vehicle." However, the plaintiff contends his vehicle did not have the emblem, so he got under his own RDX.
"Plaintiff then gets underneath his vehicle, and discovers that the vehicle does not have rear axels; meaning that it was not an all wheel drive vehicle, as it was advertised to be." — CarMax class action lawsuit
The 125 point inspection lawsuit alleges CarMax apologized "profusely" and bought the vehicle back from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff says he had been without a car for weeks, and because CarMax made false representations, he had problems with the "window operation, radiator, spare tire, battery, and visor, are all items that are specifically listed as being part of CarMax’s 125+ inspection."
Though the plaintiff describes a nightmare dealing with CarMax, he says he purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz GLA 350 4Matic from the company on December 28, 2023.
"During the visit, Plaintiff notices that the door strut/motor is making a noise, and they are also missing a second key for the vehicle. CARMAX promises to fix the door motor and obtain another key. On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff’s sunroof breaks and will not close. Plaintiff also notices that the driver’s side door weather seal is damaged. CARMAX promises to fix all of these issues." — CarMax class action lawsuit
Mr. Pilcher asserts he dropped off his vehicle at CarMax January 10, 2023, but they were allegedly unable to repair the sunroof and told him, "they have to send the vehicle to Euro Autoworks to have it repaired. Plaintiff is given a defective loaner this time, which he has to return and obtain another low-quality loaner vehicle."
According to the lawsuit, many phone calls and excuses later, CarMax has had the vehicle more than 50 days "with no end in sight." The 30-day window to return the Mercedes is gone.
The CarMax class action lawsuit alleges none of these problems would have occurred if 125+ point inspections had been performed.
The CarMax 125 point inspection class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno Division): Douglas Pilcher v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices Of Todd M. Friedman, PC.