Ernest C. Garcia III

Carvana Says It Is “Looking Into It.” Its Own Records Say Otherwise.

Carvana’s public response states that it is still gathering facts and looking into this matter.

That would be encouraging—if it matched what Carvana was telling me privately.

The documented record shows that Carvana had already denied the claim repeatedly:

July 23, 2026: Carvana denied the claim twice.
July 26, 2026: Carvana denied the claim again.
July 28, 2026: Carvana denied the claim yet again.

In between those denials, Carvana publicly represented that it had communicated with me and was still investigating the facts.

Apparently, “looking into it” means repeatedly denying the claim while publicly suggesting that no decision has been made.

This is not a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. It is a direct contradiction that can be evaluated by comparing Carvana’s public statement with its own dated communications.

We are publishing the screenshots so that readers do not have to take our word for it.

Carvana Appears Better at Protecting Its Brand Than Addressing Complaints

Carvana appears to devote considerable effort to controlling how customer complaints are presented publicly.

Customers and critics have reported being removed, blocked, or banned from online spaces where Carvana complaints are discussed, including Reddit communities such as r/carvana and r/CarvanaComplaints, as well as Carvana-related Facebook pages and groups.

To be precise, we are not claiming that Carvana directly controls every independently moderated Reddit community or Facebook group. We are alleging that criticism concerning Carvana is routinely restricted or removed across these spaces, and we will publish the screenshots and moderation notices supporting that allegation as they are documented.

That creates a troubling pattern:

Carvana privately denies claims, publicly says it is still gathering facts, and negative customer accounts have a curious habit of disappearing from the places where Carvana’s reputation is being discussed.

Perhaps Carvana is still “looking into” who keeps finding the delete and ban buttons.

Looking Into It Would Be an Improvement

To be clear, I would welcome Carvana genuinely reopening this matter and conducting a fair investigation.

“Looking into it” is better than a complete denial.

But Carvana cannot repeatedly deny the claim in private and then publicly portray itself as an organization that has not yet reached a decision.

The timestamps are clear. The denial messages are clear. The public statement does not match the documented record.

Carvana may be highly effective at protecting its brand.

The question is whether it is equally committed to protecting its customers.

Open complete Fact

For the 3rd time, Carvana doesn't address the having sold the truck to me with a rat having lived in it statements, but talk about length of time before the major issues displayed themselves.

Crooks.

Open complete Fact

Possible email address, when I email it, I do not get a failure response from Google's Mail Servers.

Open complete Fact

Carvana denies my claim, says it's been too long, the issue didn't crop up until the last 3 weeks, however I can show this goes back to when they sold it to me. View /rat/ to view the story in that order.

Open complete Fact

For the second time, they are denying based on length since the problem, they are not denying selling me a vehicle with a rat in the engine. Read /rat/ to read the story in order.

Open complete Fact

In January 2025, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a $1.5 million settlement with Carvana following hundreds of consumer complaints received since 2019. The complaints alleged a pattern of problems, including delayed vehicle title and registration documents, delayed payments to consumers selling or trading in vehicles, inaccurate representations of vehicle condition and features, and poor customer service.

Under the agreement, $1 million was allocated to a consumer restitution fund for eligible Connecticut residents who suffered financial losses related to Carvana's actions, while Carvana agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty to the state. Half of that penalty may be suspended if the company fully complies with the settlement's requirements.

The settlement also requires Carvana to strengthen its business practices in Connecticut. Among other obligations, the company must comply with state title and registration laws, improve customer service, provide a direct contact for state officials handling complaints, and maintain ongoing compliance with Connecticut consumer protection requirements. State officials said they will continue monitoring the company's performance.

Attorney General Tong stated that the settlement was intended to compensate consumers who were harmed while addressing systemic issues identified during the state's investigation. Carvana, in its public response, stated that it cooperated with the investigation and attributed many historical issues to rapid growth and pandemic-era operational challenges while expressing its commitment to improving the customer experience.

Source: CT Insider – "Connecticut reaches $1.5M settlement with Carvana over customer complaints" and the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.

Open complete Fact