08/04/2026
Got a nice response from the Arkansas State Legislature as well as the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission who plan on referring this case to the Arkansas State Police.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Formal Complaint and Request for Investigation
Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission
101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 204
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Formal Complaint and Request for Investigation into Auto Gurus – 5301 S. University Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Commissioners,
I respectfully submit this formal complaint requesting that the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission investigate the business practices of Auto Gurus, located at 5301 S. University Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, regarding the sale of a rebuilt-title vehicle. Based on my experience, the documentation I have obtained, and the findings of multiple independent inspections, I believe there are significant questions regarding the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale, the disclosures made to me, and whether all applicable Arkansas laws and regulations governing rebuilt vehicles were followed.
My objective is not only to seek review of my own transaction, but also to help protect future consumers from experiencing similar circumstances.
Background
On March 28, 2026, I traveled to Auto Gurus to purchase a 2020 Dodge Charger S**t Pack with a rebuilt title.
Before purchasing the vehicle, I specifically asked about the prior collision damage, the rebuilt title, and whether the vehicle had been fully repaired and inspected. During these discussions, CEO Blake Mitchell advised me that:
The primary repair involved replacement of the front bumper.
The incorrect bumper had initially been ordered.
The only remaining issue was a non-functioning blind spot monitor.
The vehicle had been inspected by the Arkansas State Police and qualified for a rebuilt title.
I was also informed that the illuminated airbag warning light resulted only from the installation of a replacement driver's seat and that it simply required electronic programming. I was specifically assured that this was not a safety concern.
Based upon these representations, and because no additional significant defects were disclosed, I proceeded with the purchase.
Subsequent Inspection Findings
Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, I took it to an authorized Dodge dealership in Aurora, Missouri, believing the airbag warning light only required programming.
Instead, technicians informed me that the vehicle contained numerous previously undisclosed defects and significant safety-related concerns.
Among the most serious findings were:
The Occupant Restraint Controller (ORC) had not been replaced following the previous collision.
The airbag wiring harness/module installed in the vehicle was incompatible and required replacement before the supplemental restraint system could function properly.
Because of these findings, I sought additional inspections from two independent mechanics and a frame and collision repair specialist.
Collectively, these professionals documented numerous concerns, including:
Severe structural damage, including a compromised right pinch weld.
Bent front subframe with a cracked weld.
Evidence of possible frame or unibody distortion.
A leaking radiator with evidence of stop-leak product being used as a temporary repair.
Damaged core support secured with only two bolts.
Loose, damaged, and improperly secured wiring.
Torn right front ball joint.
Damaged catalytic converters.
Improperly welded exhaust components.
Leaking transmission pan.
Fuel, brake, and EVAP lines hanging below the frame and contacting sharp edges.
Fuel tank displacement.
Incomplete restoration of critical airbag safety components.
Numerous additional repair deficiencies documented within the attached inspection reports.
These findings caused me to question whether the vehicle had been restored to a safe and roadworthy condition before being offered for retail sale.
Documentation Raising Additional Concerns
Since purchasing the vehicle, I have gathered documentation that I believe is particularly relevant to your review.
Among the documents I can provide are service records indicating that the dealership had previously taken this vehicle in for service and was reportedly advised of significant undercarriage and structural concerns before it was sold. Despite those documented concerns, the vehicle remained listed for sale.
I also possess documentation showing that the vehicle service contract (warranty) sold in connection with my purchase was later canceled by the warranty administrator after inspection because the vehicle allegedly contained numerous pre-existing conditions. If accurate, this raises an important question as to whether those conditions existed at the time of sale and whether they should have been identified or disclosed before the vehicle was offered to a consumer.
I believe these documents, when considered together with the independent inspection reports, provide important information for the Commission to review in determining whether appropriate disclosures were made and whether the vehicle met the standards expected for retail sale.
Rebuilt Title Documentation
Following these discoveries, I contacted the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration to better understand the rebuilt-title process applicable to this vehicle.
Based upon the information available to me, I was unable to locate documentation reflecting the extensive repairs that would appear necessary given the vehicle's present condition. The records I reviewed appeared to reference replacement of the front bumper cover, yet I did not find documentation corresponding to the substantial structural and safety-related repairs identified during the independent inspections.
Additionally, I did not observe the rebuilt vehicle disclosure sticker or window notice that I understand may be required when offering certain rebuilt vehicles for sale. I respectfully request that the Commission determine whether all required disclosures and documentation were properly completed.
Good-Faith Attempts to Resolve
Before filing this complaint, I made every reasonable effort to resolve this matter directly with Auto Gurus without involving regulatory agencies or pursuing litigation.
I contacted the dealership, provided inspection reports, explained the significant safety concerns identified by multiple repair facilities, and requested that Auto Gurus simply repurchase the vehicle.
My goal has always been to reach a fair and reasonable resolution without requiring lengthy and expensive legal proceedings.
Unfortunately, despite providing documentation supporting my concerns, those efforts have not resulted in a satisfactory resolution.
As a consumer, litigation would require substantial financial resources and could take years to resolve. I believe consumers should not be forced into costly legal action simply to seek a fair resolution when significant concerns arise regarding the condition of a vehicle sold by a licensed dealership.
Pattern of Consumer Complaints and Public Litigation
In addition to the facts surrounding my own transaction, I respectfully request that the Commission review whether this matter is indicative of a broader pattern of conduct.
During my research, I identified public records reflecting that Auto Gurus has been involved in multiple consumer lawsuits and legal disputes involving allegations related to vehicle condition, disclosures, and representations made during the sale of used and rebuilt vehicles. While I understand that the existence of a lawsuit alone does not establish liability or wrongdoing, I believe these matters may provide relevant context for the Commission's review.
My experience raises concerns similar to those alleged in some of these public filings, including:
Whether rebuilt or rebranded vehicles were fully and accurately disclosed before purchase.
Whether the condition and quality of vehicles were accurately represented to consumers.
Whether required rebuilt-vehicle disclosures and documentation were properly provided at the time of sale.
Whether rebuilt or rebranded vehicles offered for sale displayed all notices and disclosures required under Arkansas law.
Whether reliance on standard "AS IS" purchase documents may have occurred in situations where consumers allege they were not fully informed of material facts regarding a vehicle's prior damage or condition.
I respectfully request that the Commission review whether Auto Gurus has consistently complied with Arkansas statutes and Commission regulations governing rebuilt vehicles, consumer disclosures, advertising, and dealer licensing requirements.
Because I have now assembled documentation relating to my own purchase—including inspection reports, repair findings, service records, warranty cancellation documentation, correspondence, and evidence of my repeated attempts to resolve this matter without litigation—I believe there is sufficient information to warrant a thorough review.
My intent throughout this process has been to resolve this matter fairly and directly with the dealership. I made multiple good-faith attempts to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation by requesting that Auto Gurus simply repurchase the vehicle after I presented the documented safety concerns. Unfortunately, those efforts were unsuccessful, leaving me with little choice but to seek assistance from the agencies responsible for overseeing licensed motor vehicle dealers and protecting Arkansas consumers.
Request for Investigation
Given the documentation now available—including independent inspection reports, service records, warranty cancellation documentation, and correspondence regarding my attempts to resolve this matter—I respectfully request that the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission review whether Auto Gurus complied with all applicable Arkansas statutes, regulations, and licensing requirements, including but not limited to:
Required disclosures to consumers.
Compliance with rebuilt vehicle requirements.
Documentation supporting the rebuilt-title process.
The condition of the vehicle at the time it was offered for sale.
Representations made regarding the vehicle's condition.
Any additional matters the Commission believes appropriate under its regulatory authority.
Supporting Documentation
I am prepared to provide the following documentation in support of this complaint:
Purchase agreement and sales documents.
Vehicle history records.
Inspection reports from an authorized Dodge dealership.
Inspection reports from independent mechanics.
Frame and collision specialist findings.
Repair estimates.
Documentation indicating the dealership's prior knowledge of significant vehicle damage.
Documentation regarding cancellation of the vehicle service contract due to reported pre-existing conditions.
Correspondence with Auto Gurus demonstrating my repeated attempts to resolve this matter without litigation.
Correspondence with the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration.
Photographs documenting the vehicle's condition.
Any additional information the Commission may request.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to protecting Arkansas consumers and ensuring that licensed motor vehicle dealers comply with the laws and regulations governing vehicle sales within the State of Arkansas.
I appreciate your review of this matter and stand ready to cooperate fully with any investigation the Commission determines is appropriate.
Respectfully,
