Lender Interference in Georgia Repossessions

A Growing UDAAP Risk When Discussing Fees and Processes

GUEST EDITORIAL

Georgia’s framework for handling personal property in repossessed vehicles is clear and balanced, yet lender and forwarder involvement in consumer discussions about fees and redemption processes is creating significant legal exposure under the state’s Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.). Even well-intentioned comments from lender representatives about costs, timelines, or procedures can cross into unfair or deceptive territory when they conflict with the statutory rights and obligations established in O.C.G.A. § 44-14-411.1.

The Irony: Who’s Really at Risk?

Here’s the striking contradiction: Lenders and forwarders routinely mandate that repossession agencies undergo extensive UDAAP training, maintain compliance policies, submit to audits, and demonstrate adherence to consumer protection standards. Agencies face scorecard penalties, contract termination, and intense scrutiny for any hint of non-compliance.

Yet these same lenders and forwarders—through their own call center scripts, consumer portals, and representative training—are systematically making statements to consumers that directly contradict Georgia statutory requirements. When a lender tells a consumer “you shouldn’t have to pay fees” or “we’ll handle the release” while simultaneously requiring their contracted agency to follow the the statute mandating the lien, they create the exact UDAAP exposure they claim to be preventing.

The compliance burden has been placed entirely on agencies while lenders engage in the very practices—deceptive and unfair consumer communications—that create the most significant class action exposure.

The Statutory Foundation: A Non-Waivable Possessory Lien

Under Georgia law, a repossession agency that lawfully recovers a vehicle holds a statutory possessory lien on any personal property inside it. This lien secures “reasonable expenses” for inventory, preservation, storage, and required notices. Consumers must satisfy the lien—typically by paying these reasonable fees or posting bond/escrow—to redeem their belongings.

Key elements include:

Mandatory notice within 10 days of repossession.
Two 30-day redemption periods (total 60 days).
Explicit authority for agencies to charge reasonable costs, as confirmed by Georgia Attorney General guidance in 2011 and 2020.

Georgia courts have consistently ruled that statutory rights in the repossession context cannot be waived by private contract unless the legislature expressly allows it (Cook v. Covington Credit of Georgia, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 825 (2008)). Because § 44-14-411.1 contains no waiver provision, lenders and forwarders cannot override the lien through contract terms or operational policies.

The Risk Zone: Consumer-Facing Communications Create Class Action Exposure

Lenders and forwarders are often the first point of contact for consumers after a repossession. When representatives discuss personal property redemption—whether about fees, timelines, required steps, or even “what to expect”—they enter a high-risk area for consumer class action litigation under the FBPA.

Examples of problematic statements or implications include:

“You shouldn’t have to pay any fees to get your items back.”
“Fees are optional” or “usually waived.”
“Just call us and we’ll handle the release.”
Downplaying costs or suggesting the lender controls the process.
Omitting that reasonable expenses are required by law.

Even neutral-sounding discussions can become deceptive or unfair if they:

Create conflicting information between what the lender says and what the agency must do under statute.
Omit material facts, such as the consumer’s statutory obligation to pay reasonable expenses.
Imply lender authority over a process that Georgia law assigns exclusively to the repossession agency.

The FBPA prohibits practices that are deceptive (likely to mislead a reasonable consumer) or unfair (causing substantial injury not reasonably avoidable and without countervailing benefits). Misleading or incomplete guidance about statutory redemption rights fits both categories:

Consumers reasonably rely on their lender as an authoritative source.
Confusion can delay access to essential items (medications, IDs, child necessities, work tools).
Some consumers may abandon valid statutory claims believing fees are “optional.”
Systemic scripting across call centers or portals creates “pattern-or-practice” exposure affecting thousands of consumers.

Industry observers, including Carl W. Carico in his November 2025 white paper “Georgia’s Personal Property Lien,” have highlighted how modern forwarding policies and national templates systematically conflict with state law. When those conflicts spill into consumer communications—even casually—they create the foundation for consumer class actions.

Consumer Class Action: The Nuclear Risk

Unlike individual repossessor claims for tortious interference or conversion, consumer class actions under the FBPA represent catastrophic exposure for lenders and forwarders:

Why Consumer Classes Are Highly Certifiable:

Common Questions of Law and Fact – Did the lender use uniform scripts, training materials, or portal messaging that misrepresented statutory requirements? This single question applies to all class members.
Typicality – All consumers whose vehicles were repossessed in Georgia received the same or substantially similar misinformation from lender representatives.
Numerosity – High-volume repossession portfolios create classes of thousands or tens of thousands of affected consumers.
Adequacy – Consumer protection plaintiff’s bar has extensive experience with FBPA class actions.

FBPA’s Powerful Remedies Incentivize Litigation:

Treble damages – Actual damages are multiplied by three
Attorney fees – Prevailing plaintiffs recover legal costs
Injunctive relief – Courts can mandate systemic policy changes
No requirement of individual reliance – Pattern-or-practice violations can establish liability without proving each consumer relied on specific statements

Calculating the Exposure:

Consider a lender with 10,000 Georgia repossessions annually where personal property was present:

Average consumer harm: $500 (delayed access to essential items, confusion, time spent navigating conflicting information)
Base damages: $5,000,000
Trebled: $15,000,000
Plus attorney fees: potentially $3-5 million
Plus injunctive relief costs (systems changes, training, monitoring)

Total exposure from a single year of uniform practices: $20+ million

And that’s before considering:

Multi-year class periods
Emotional distress claims (family denied child’s medication, work tools)
Punitive damages in egregious cases
Regulatory enforcement by Georgia Attorney General

The Hypocrisy Amplifies the Risk:

The fact that lenders mandate UDAAP compliance from agencies while engaging in systematic UDAAP violations themselves creates additional exposure:

Heightened Knowledge Standard – Lenders cannot claim ignorance of UDAAP requirements when they audit agencies for the same.
Willful Violations – Evidence that lenders knew of statutory requirements (through agency contracts, training materials) but implemented conflicting consumer scripts suggests intentional conduct.
Discovery Goldmine – Agency compliance manuals, audit reports, and training materials will demonstrate lenders’ knowledge of statutory requirements they then contradicted in consumer communications.
Jury Appeal – “They forced small businesses to follow the law while breaking it themselves” is a compelling narrative.

The Double Standard as Evidence:

Plaintiff’s counsel will use lenders’ own compliance requirements against them:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant required their contractors to complete 40 hours of consumer protection training, maintain detailed compliance policies, and submit to quarterly audits. They terminated contracts for minor violations. Yet their own call center representatives—reading from scripts approved by corporate compliance—told thousands of Georgia consumers that statutory fees were ‘optional’ and ‘shouldn’t be charged.’ They knew the law. They taught the law. They just didn’t follow it themselves.”

Additional Claims May Compound Exposure:

Consumer plaintiffs may also assert:

Negligent misrepresentation – Lenders in position of trust provided false information
Promissory estoppel – Consumers relied on lender promises that fees would be waived
Unjust enrichment – Lenders benefited from statutory compliance they actively undermined
Emotional distress – Particularly compelling where children’s items, medications, or work tools were involved

Best Practices: How Lenders Can Eliminate Consumer Class Risk

The simplest way to avoid FBPA class action exposure is non-interference with the statutory process:

Immediately Audit All Consumer-Facing Communications

Review call center scripts, training materials, portal messaging, and website content
Identify any statements about personal property fees, processes, or lender authority
Document every consumer touchpoint where redemption is discussed

Adopt Statute-Aligned Language

Train all representatives to use only this framework:

“Personal property found in the repossessed vehicle is handled directly by the repossession agency in accordance with Georgia law. They will contact you with information about retrieval and any applicable reasonable expenses as required by statute. Here is their contact information: [agency details].”

Prohibit Discussing Specifics

Representatives must not comment on:

Fee amounts or ranges
Whether fees might be waived
Timelines beyond referring to statutory notices
Redemption procedures or requirements
Lender authority over the process

Eliminate Contradictory Contract Terms

Remove from agency agreements:

“Free release” mandates
Scorecard penalties for charging lawful fees
Instructions implying lender control over personal property
Conflicting compliance requirements

Implement the Same Standards You Require

If agencies must undergo UDAAP training and audits, lender personnel who discuss repossessions with consumers should meet identical standards—and those standards must align with Georgia statutory requirements.

Create an Audit Trail

Document that:

All consumer-facing personnel received Georgia statutory training
Scripts and materials were reviewed by counsel
Compliance is monitored through call recording review
Violations result in retraining or discipline

Support Transparent, Uniform Standards

Models like the Georgia Personal Property Fee Standard (GPFS) proposed in Carico’s analysis—with clear base fees, daily storage rates, and consumer protections—eliminate the ambiguity that creates UDAAP exposure.

Conclusion: The Bill Comes Due

Georgia’s personal property statute deliberately places the repossession agency—not the lender—at the center of redemption. When lenders discuss fees, processes, or related topics in ways that conflict with or obscure statutory requirements, they create precisely the UDAAP exposure they’ve spent years forcing agencies to prevent.

The consumer class action risk is real, substantial, and growing. Unlike individual agency claims, consumer classes can be certified based on uniform practices affecting thousands of consumers. FBPA’s treble damages and attorney fee provisions make these cases attractive to plaintiff’s counsel. And the irony of lenders violating the very standards they mandate for others provides both legal evidence and jury appeal.

The path forward is clear: Apply the same compliance rigor to your own consumer communications that you demand from your vendors. Align statements with statutory requirements. Direct consumers to agencies. Let Georgia’s framework operate as designed.

Those who continue discussing personal property in ways that contradict state law are not managing vendor compliance—they’re creating their own eight-figure liability.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified Georgia counsel for evaluation of specific policies, scripts, or circumstances.

By Carl W. Carico (Expanded Considerations and Analysis from the GA Personal Property White Paper)