1LAW Logo

Suing a Dealership for Odometer Fraud on a Used Car

Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.

JV

Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*

Managing Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed July 15, 2025

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

I purchased a used car from a dealership in December 2024 for $31,000. I recently ran a VIN report that confirmed the vehicle has a history of odometer tampering, flagged as “Not Actual Mileage” by the NMVTIS federal database. The dealer never disclosed this, and the title and sale documents listed the mileage as accurate. Can I sue the dealership for fraud or get a full refund based on this federal violation?

Bought a used BMW from a dealership in December 2024 for $31,000. I recently ran a VIN report and found it has verified odometer tampering, flagged as “Not Actual Mileage” by NMVTIS. This was never disclosed at the time of sale, and all paperwork listed the mileage as accurate. Can I take legal action against the dealership for odometer fraud and misrepresentation, and am I entitled to a refund or damages?

Attorney Answer

Yes — this is one of the stronger consumer claims there is, because federal law provides for treble damages or a $10,000 minimum, whichever is greater, plus mandatory attorney's fees.

Federal law requires the transferor of a vehicle to disclose the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer, or to state that the actual mileage is unknown, and prohibits giving a false statement in making that disclosure (49 U.S.C. § 32705). If the sale paperwork represented the mileage as accurate despite a documented tampering history, that is the violation.

The remedy is what makes this worth pursuing. A person who violates the odometer chapter with intent to defraud is liable for three times actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, and the court is required to award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee (49 U.S.C. § 32710). That mandatory fee award is why attorneys take these cases without hourly billing from the client. Expect the dealership to answer that it did not know. That is not automatically a defense: in Shaghoian v. Aghajani, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2002), a federal district court held that a dealer-transferor who lacks actual knowledge that a mileage disclosure is false "only because he displays a reckless disregard for the truth" can still be found to have acted with the intent to defraud that § 32710 requires. That ruling denied summary judgment to both sides — it treats intent as a triable question of fact rather than establishing dealer liability — and as a federal district court decision it is persuasive authority only, not binding on California courts.

California also separately prohibits disconnecting, turning back, advancing, or resetting an odometer with intent to alter the mileage indicated (Cal. Veh. Code § 28051). Note the difference: the state statute requires intent to alter the reading, not intent to defraud, which is a lower bar and can make it a useful companion claim.

There is a short deadline on the federal claim. The federal odometer action must be brought within two years after the claim accrues — noticeably shorter than the periods that apply to many state law claims. When that clock started running in your case depends on the facts, including when the tampering was or should have been discovered. Do not calculate this yourself; have a California attorney confirm your specific timeline and file well inside it.

What you can do

1. Save the full vehicle history report showing the "Not Actual Mileage" flag, along with the purchase paperwork and title showing the mileage as represented. 2. Collect the advertising and listing materials from the dealership that also stated the mileage. 3. Contact a California consumer protection or auto fraud attorney promptly given the two-year federal window; many handle these on contingency because of the fee-shifting provision. 4. File complaints with the DMV's Investigations Division and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, which can generate pressure independent of a lawsuit. 5. Avoid trading in, selling, or making changes to the vehicle before you have spoken with an attorney, since the car itself is evidence.

Cases Cited

Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.

  • Shaghoian v. Aghajani, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2002) — United States District Court, C.D. California (Chapman, Mag. J.) — persuasive only, not binding
    Under the federal Odometer Act, a transferor who lacks actual knowledge that a mileage disclosure is false "only because he displays a reckless disregard for the truth" can still be found to have acted with the "intent to defraud" required for civil liability under 49 U.S.C. § 32710 — a fact finder may infer intent where the transferor "clos[ed] his eyes to the truth." Whether that intent exists is ordinarily a triable question of fact rather than something resolved on summary judgment.

*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.

By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Courts & Legal Aid in California

Frequently Asked Questions

What damages are available for odometer fraud under federal law?

Three times actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, where the violation was committed with intent to defraud, plus court costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, which the court is required to award (49 U.S.C. § 32710).

How long does someone have to sue for odometer fraud?

The federal action must be brought within two years after the claim accrues. Because the accrual date can depend on when the problem was or reasonably should have been discovered, that timeline is worth confirming with an attorney early.

Does California have its own odometer tampering law separate from federal law?

Yes. Cal. Veh. Code § 28051 makes it unlawful to disconnect, turn back, advance, or reset an odometer with intent to alter the mileage indicated. That is a lower bar than proving intent to defraud, and it can be pursued alongside a federal claim.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices