Is "stealing" your order Identity Theft?

[Cyberwiz64]

I am hoping there might be some lawyers out there that can kick their .02 in.

A dealership, from what I understand, cannot order a Maverick for stock purposes. To order a Maverick, a customer has to supply a valid driver's license for the Customer Verification Order Process (COVP). The intention of the COVP is to assure Ford that their is an actual customer placing the order for a Maverick. If there is no DL, there is no COVP, there is no order. The bottom line is a Ford dealership cannot place and order without a customer providing identifying documentation to get past the COVP. No customer, no order.

I am wondering if a Ford dealership uses a customer's identification to order a vehicle they have no intention of selling to the customer, does that constitute identify theft?

The dealership is reselling the customer's vehicle, without their consent, to make a huge mark up. This is not being done "accidentally" and it's being done for financial gain to the detriment of the customer. The dealership may argue that the customer could drive off the lot and flip the truck and make a huge mark up.

In my mind, they are using the customer's personal information to make money to the detriment of the customer. With all the complaints about theft out there, someone might want to reach out to a lawyer and see if they can pursue class action.

If there is a lawyer out there, I would love to know if that constitutes "identity theft" in some capacity?

Sponsored

 

[B2000]

Interesting question. I think you would need to demonstrate actual damages you suffered. Not an attorney.

 

[1929]

Ford sells vehicle to franchised dealer. Vehicle is not yours when you order it.
I'm no attorney.

 

[Cyberwiz64]

I am curious because without a customer supplying ID, the order would not exist.

 

[gte105u]

I am hoping there might be some lawyers out there that can kick their .02 in.

A dealership, from what I understand, cannot order a Maverick for stock purposes. To order a Maverick, a customer has to supply a valid driver's license for the Customer Verification Order Process (COVP). The intention of the COVP is to assure Ford that their is an actual customer placing the order for a Maverick. If there is no DL, there is no COVP, there is no order. The bottom line is a Ford dealership cannot place and order without a customer providing identifying documentation to get past the COVP. No customer, no order.

I am wondering if a Ford dealership uses a customer's identification to order a vehicle they have no intention of selling to the customer, does that constitute identify theft?

The dealership is reselling the customer's vehicle, without their consent, to make a huge mark up. This is not being done "accidentally" and it's being done for financial gain to the detriment of the customer. The dealership may argue that the customer could drive off the lot and flip the truck and make a huge mark up.

In my mind, they are using the customer's personal information to make money to the detriment of the customer. With all the complaints about theft out there, someone might want to reach out to a lawyer and see if they can pursue class action.

If there is a lawyer out there, I would love to know if that constitutes "identity theft" in some capacity?

No, it is not. Don't need to be a lawyer to answer that. They are not saying they are you, so there is no theft of your identity. It is a civil matter on terms and conditions for which the order was placed.

Now if they ordered on your behalf, but you never actually ordered one... maybe there could be a case for that. But that was not the question. And even then unless they forged signatures, used your ID from a former order without permission, etc. it would be hard to back up.

 

[Dr3wman]

Short answer - No.

 

[Cyberwiz64]

It's just sad to see this happening and legally, nothing was done wrong.

 

[JimCT]

Also not a lawyer, but I'll throw in an additional opinion...

So first, a dealer can place an order for dealer stock (unless Ford decides they cannot). That's actually how I got my truck - it was a dealer order that I got lucky on.

Next, Identity Theft is a specific type of action - if you are willingly giving them your information and they use that information as you requested, that's not theft of your identity at all.

What we might be seeing is a dealer taking orders in bad faith - that is, using a customer's request for an order with an intention to not honor the sale when the time comes. That's still not identity theft, but it could be considered a breach of contract (which is a civil matter, not criminal as identity theft would be).

The big problem - breach of contract doesn't get much attention or credence unless there are monetary damages. Once a dealer refunds a deposit (especially when the deposit is taken with the caveat that it's refundable if the truck doesn't get built or buyer changes their mind), there isn't much that courts will do for you.

Ultimately this becomes a matter of ethics, not law. Some dealers know how to do business ethically, some are scumbags, but the vast majority are legal in either case.

 

[gte105u]

It's just sad to see this happening and legally, nothing was done wrong.

It's because it's a civil matter, not a criminal one. Shady business dealings happen every day by bad people to good people. It sucks, but it happens.

The closest thing I could think of from a criminal law standpoint may be fraud. If you can prove that they had no intent of selling you the order, but used your information and led you on, then you may have a case for fraud. But for anyone to blink at it, I would assume there needs to be a widespread issue by a single dealer, with an internally stated practice of doing it and a single source in the dealership to hold accountable. That is another issue with civil issues becoming criminal. Usually intent needs to be shown, which is tough without a whistleblower. And there needs to be a party who can be held accountable and an ability to pierce the corporate veil. You can't put a company in jail...

 

[710-oil-614]

I am hoping there might be some lawyers out there that can kick their .02 in.

A dealership, from what I understand, cannot order a Maverick for stock purposes. To order a Maverick, a customer has to supply a valid driver's license for the Customer Verification Order Process (COVP). The intention of the COVP is to assure Ford that their is an actual customer placing the order for a Maverick. If there is no DL, there is no COVP, there is no order. The bottom line is a Ford dealership cannot place and order without a customer providing identifying documentation to get past the COVP. No customer, no order.

I am wondering if a Ford dealership uses a customer's identification to order a vehicle they have no intention of selling to the customer, does that constitute identify theft?

The dealership is reselling the customer's vehicle, without their consent, to make a huge mark up. This is not being done "accidentally" and it's being done for financial gain to the detriment of the customer. The dealership may argue that the customer could drive off the lot and flip the truck and make a huge mark up.

In my mind, they are using the customer's personal information to make money to the detriment of the customer. With all the complaints about theft out there, someone might want to reach out to a lawyer and see if they can pursue class action.

If there is a lawyer out there, I would love to know if that constitutes "identity theft" in some capacity?

Good thought but no.

You might be able to pursue the angle of promissory estoppel but even then I don't think you're going to get very far.

Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that in essence stops a person or business from going back on their word. What it does is help a party recover "damages" that they have incurred from the broken promise with the dealership. Lastly promissory estoppel varies greatly by jurisdiction.

So what you would have to show is damages that you have incurred by a dealership "promising" (ie placing your order, taking a deposit) to sell you a vehicle. You also probably need an already agreed upon sales price here as well.

Based on that promise from the time you placed your order until the day you found out the truck was sold out from under you, and (possibly) until you found a replacement for it - you would need to prove that you have suffered damages as a result of the broken promise.

Absent of an agreed upon sales price - you couldn't even argue a higher payment for a similar vehicle because you didn't agree on the price in the first place.

You'd be fighting a really hard uphill battle.

Filing the suit might get the dealership to cut you a check for a nominal amount of money to make you go away. Which might be ones best recourse because no dealership wants their attorney heading to court because they mistreated a customer.

 

[Ken L]

The way I'm reading the original post is, that the Ford dealer is NOT selling the Maverick out from under a legitimit customer. Since dealers are NOT allowed (or restricted) on how many Mavericks they can order for dealer stock. Is this dealer pulling a name with driver's license number out of there files, previous purchase??, knowing that they are not likely to order a Maverick.
They could then use this information to make an apparent proper order COVP etc to Ford. Add in a made up e-mail address, for updates etc. When the vehicle arrives at the dealership, dealer tells Ford Corporate that the COVP buyer has changed there mind and do not want it. Dealer now has a 'stock' unit to sell as they please.
The persons name on the COVP is not out anything (if they ever find out), Maybe if Ford had a limit (1) on how many orders an individual could place in a time frame.
Others that could be affected would include the Dealers real customers who orders would be put down the order ladder.

Just my own thoughts
Ken

 

[B. Maverick]

Well, I am a lawyer, and I think the non-lawyers are right on the money. The catch is, of course, that state laws vary, and I haven't the foggiest idea what the law is in Florida. But I don't see how this set of facts would rise to the level of identity theft.
On the issue of fraud, maybe. And there might be a way to get some kind of compensation civilly. Say, you had an XLT that you were supposed to buy for $28K; they sold it out from under you; you had to by one for $38K. Damages are $10K. But that's more of a law school question than a real case.
There may be ways to punish them by snitching them off to the consumer protection people in Florida, assuming there are such people. But at a certain point running laps on the squirrel wheel of the law can be debilitating and, eventually, fruitless.

 

[ejouie]

In legal courts, the dealer isn't going to get in trouble for this unless they are dumb enough to not return the deposit.

Now in potential Ford Court with the Honorable Judge Jim Farley, and allocations penalizations instead of $, maybe.

 

[Rendar]

Not a lawyer but my $.02 is;

If you have an email or something stating they will sell you that VIN when it comes in, and then you didn't do anything to void that agreement, you can take it to small claims court.

You will need to show damages. For example, they sold your promised VIN, at promised MSRP, to someone else, and so then you had to go buy a Maverick at $5000 over MSRP, you may have a case to go after that original dealer for the $5k markup you had to pay.

 

[TheQuixotic1]

Well, I am a lawyer, and I think the non-lawyers are right on the money. The catch is, of course, that state laws vary, and I haven't the foggiest idea what the law is in Florida. But I don't see how this set of facts would rise to the level of identity theft.
On the issue of fraud, maybe. And there might be a way to get some kind of compensation civilly. Say, you had an XLT that you were supposed to buy for $28K; they sold it out from under you; you had to by one for $38K. Damages are $10K. But that's more of a law school question than a real case.
There may be ways to punish them by snitching them off to the consumer protection people in Florida, assuming there are such people. But at a certain point running laps on the squirrel wheel of the law can be debilitating and, eventually, fruitless.

The only angle I can think of to add to all this is that, I believe, during the Wells-Fargo cross-selling scandal in 2016 it was stated that the act of using customers' PII (personal identifying information), even without running their credit or signing them up for services, was enough to be constituted as fraud.

But that was also surrounding a national bank that created over 1.5 million fake accounts and services; I doubt car dealerships would face nearly the same scrutiny or level of investigation.

Sponsored