What the Landmark Case Alleged
In December 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice jointly announced what they described as the largest auto loan discrimination settlement in federal history against Ally Financial and Ally Bank. The case alleged that Ally policy of giving auto dealers discretion to mark up interest rates above the rate Ally itself set, and then paying dealers based on those markups, resulted in African American, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers paying higher interest rates than similarly situated non-Hispanic white borrowers, even though the dealer markup was not based on the borrower actual creditworthiness.
Regulators found this pattern affected more than 235,000 minority borrowers between April 2011 and December 2013. This was the first joint fair lending enforcement action brought together by the CFPB and DOJ, reflecting the significance regulators placed on the case.
The Settlement Terms
Ally agreed to pay 80 million dollars in damages to affected borrowers and an additional 18 million dollars in civil penalties to the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, for a combined 98 million dollars. Ally also committed to refund borrowers who were overcharged after December 2013 for the following three years, unless the company significantly reduced the pricing disparities on its own, creating an ongoing financial incentive to eliminate discriminatory markups going forward rather than simply paying a one-time penalty.
This settlement remains a frequently cited precedent in fair lending enforcement, illustrating how dealer discretion in an indirect lending model, where the bank does not deal directly with the consumer, can still create liability for the lender if it results in a discriminatory pattern, even without any single instance of intentional discrimination against a specific borrower.
A Separate, More Recent Lawsuit: Dismissed
More recently, and unrelated to the lending discrimination matter, Ally faced a lawsuit challenging its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, part of a broader wave of similar legal challenges against corporate DEI programs following a shift in the legal and political environment around these issues. That case against Ally was dismissed in 2024, reportedly after the bank had already reduced its public emphasis on certain DEI messaging.
This DEI-related case is entirely separate from the historic lending discrimination settlement, involving different legal theories, different plaintiffs, and a different outcome, so the two should not be confused when researching Ally litigation history.
How to Get Legal Help
To follow any further developments, bookmark this page and subscribe to LawsuitWatch alerts.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
Ally Lawsuit: The Landmark Auto Loan Discrimination Case: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What was the Ally auto loan discrimination case about?
A joint 2013 CFPB and DOJ action alleging Ally policy of allowing dealers to mark up interest rates, combined with paying dealers based on those markups, resulted in minority borrowers paying higher rates than similarly situated white borrowers, affecting more than 235,000 people.
How much did Ally pay?
98 million dollars total, made up of 80 million dollars in damages to affected borrowers and 18 million dollars in civil penalties, described at the time as the largest auto loan discrimination settlement in federal history.
Did Ally have to change its practices going forward?
Yes. Ally agreed to refund borrowers overcharged after December 2013 for three years unless it significantly reduced the pricing disparities itself, creating a financial incentive to eliminate discriminatory markups rather than simply pay a penalty and continue as before.
Is the newer Ally DEI lawsuit related to the lending case?
No. It is a separate, more recent legal matter challenging Ally diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, distinct from the 2013 lending discrimination settlement. That DEI case was dismissed in 2024.
Is this settlement still relevant today?
Yes, it remains a frequently cited precedent in fair lending enforcement, illustrating how dealer discretion in indirect auto lending can create liability for a lender even without a single instance of intentional discrimination.