Rural Car Buyers Drove Hours to a Dealership That Charged Them More for Being Native American

Rhinelander Auto Center and its affiliated dealerships sell vehicles in a rural stretch of northern Wisconsin, where a trip to the dealer can mean a drive of several hours each way for many customers. According to a joint complaint from the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Wisconsin, the dealership group deceptively tacked illegal junk fees onto what roughly half its customers paid, while separately charging Native American customers higher financing costs and fees than similarly situated non-Native customers.DOCUMENTED

The FTC and Wisconsin reached proposed settlements totaling $1.1 million with Rhinelander Auto Center, its current and former owners, and its general manager.DOCUMENTED

What the complaint alleges

According to the complaint, roughly half of Rhinelander's customers were charged for add-on products and services either without their consent or as the result of deceptive sales practices, adding hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the price of a vehicle beyond what the customer understood they were agreeing to pay.DOCUMENTED Separately, the complaint alleges the dealership discriminated against Native American customers specifically, charging them higher financing costs and additional fees compared to similarly situated customers of other races purchasing comparable vehicles under comparable credit circumstances.DOCUMENTED

Why rural geography compounded the harm

The FTC's own commentary on the case specifically noted that many of Rhinelander's customers lived in rural areas where a trip to the dealer could take several hours, a detail that matters because it meant returning to dispute a fee, renegotiate financing terms, or simply shop around at a competing dealership was a far more costly proposition for these customers than it would be for a buyer with several dealerships within a short drive.REVIEWED That geographic isolation reduced the practical competitive pressure Rhinelander faced from rival dealers, a dynamic the complaint's underlying allegations suggest the dealership may have leveraged when setting fees and financing terms for customers with fewer realistic alternatives nearby.

How dealership discrimination cases are typically proven

Discrimination claims against auto dealers generally rely on statistical comparison: matching customers by credit score, loan term, vehicle price, and other legitimate underwriting factors, then comparing the actual interest rate markups and fees charged to customers of different races within those matched groups.REVIEWED A persistent, statistically significant gap between what Native American customers paid and what similarly qualified customers of other races paid, controlling for those legitimate factors, is the kind of evidence that supports a discrimination claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, distinct from and in addition to the separately alleged junk-fee violations affecting the broader customer base.

Terms of the settlement

Under the proposed settlements, Rhinelander and its current and former owners along with its general manager agreed to pay $1.1 million in consumer redress.DOCUMENTED The settlements require the dealership to be clear and truthful about what consumers are buying and how much it costs, to obtain express, informed consent before adding any product or service to a transaction, and to implement fair lending practices addressing the discriminatory financing markups identified in the complaint.DOCUMENTED

Many of the dealership's customers lived hours away by car — a distance that made disputing an unexpected fee or shopping a competing dealer far more costly than it would be for an urban buyer.

Why the case matters

The Rhinelander case arrived as part of a broader FTC and state enforcement pattern targeting both add-on junk fees and discriminatory financing markups across the auto dealership industry, including parallel actions against dealership groups accused of similar conduct toward Black customers in other states.REVIEWED For car buyers in any market, but particularly in rural areas with limited dealership competition, the case is a reminder that financing terms and add-on charges are independently negotiable, and that a dealership's geographic isolation from competitors does not exempt it from federal fair lending and consumer protection law.

How the settlement addresses both violations at once

Structuring a single settlement to address both the add-on junk fees affecting roughly half of all customers and the discriminatory financing markups affecting Native American customers specifically reflects how these two categories of harm, while legally distinct, often stem from the same underlying sales culture: a dealership with wide, largely unsupervised discretion for individual salespeople to add fees or adjust financing terms creates conditions where both generalized overcharging and targeted discrimination can flourish simultaneously, often at the hands of the same employees making case-by-case pricing decisions.

Why fair lending programs are a standard remedy

Requiring Rhinelander to implement a comprehensive fair lending program, capping the discretion individual employees have to adjust interest rate markups, addresses the root structural cause the complaint identifies rather than simply penalizing the specific instances of discrimination already documented. Removing broad, unsupervised pricing discretion is the remedy regulators have applied consistently across auto dealership discrimination cases, since discretion of that kind is what allows individual bias, conscious or not, to translate into measurably different financing costs for otherwise identically qualified customers. For rural car buyers specifically, comparing financing terms against a national online lender before visiting a local dealership can provide an independent benchmark that is otherwise hard to obtain when the nearest competing dealer is hours away. Requesting a written, itemized breakdown of every fee before signing any purchase agreement remains a simple, effective check available to any buyer, rural or urban. Bringing that written breakdown home to review without a salesperson present, before signing anything, adds an extra layer of protection against pressure-driven add-ons.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.