A Chicago-area car dealership is facing a lawsuit after a legally blind customer accused the store of dramatically increasing both the purchase price and financing rate on a new SUV after verbally agreeing to different terms.
Jerry Bosley, a North Chicago resident who is legally blind, filed suit against City Chevrolet of Grayslake in Illinois circuit court, alleging the dealership engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices during his purchase of a 2023 Chevrolet Traverse.
According to the lawsuit, Bosley believed he was purchasing the SUV for roughly $32,915 with financing that would beat his credit union’s reported 6 percent interest offer. After signing the paperwork, however, he allegedly discovered the actual contract reflected a purchase price exceeding $43,000 and an 11 percent interest rate.
The lawsuit accuses the dealership of exploiting Bosley’s visual impairment by failing to provide reasonable accommodations that would have allowed him to independently review the documents before signing them.
Lawsuit Claims Dealership Changed Key Terms
Court filings allege Bosley visited City Chevrolet in July 2023 after finding the Traverse advertised online. Since he does not drive himself, the vehicle was intended for family members to drive him.
Bosley’s attorneys claim dealership employees verbally presented one set of terms during negotiations before allegedly preparing paperwork containing substantially different figures.
According to the complaint, Bosley relied entirely on dealership staff to summarize the contracts because his visual impairment prevented him from reviewing the documents independently without accommodation.
The lawsuit alleges dealership employees provided only a “basic description” of the paperwork while failing to disclose major changes involving pricing, financing, and additional contract terms.
After returning home and reviewing the documents with family members, Bosley allegedly discovered the SUV’s final price had increased by more than $10,000 over the advertised amount.
Interest Rate Allegedly Nearly Doubled
The financing terms became another major point of dispute. Bosley claims dealership staff assured him they could secure financing at a rate lower than his credit union’s offer, which was reportedly around 6 percent. Instead, the signed paperwork allegedly reflected an 11 percent interest rate.
According to the complaint, Bosley immediately objected after discovering the discrepancy but was told it was “too late” because the contracts had already been signed.
The lawsuit further claims that was also the first moment Bosley learned he had allegedly signed an arbitration agreement limiting his ability to pursue legal action in court.
City Chevrolet has since filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that Bosley agreed to mandatory private arbitration as part of the signed documents.
Bosley disputes that claim, maintaining he was never properly informed that an arbitration agreement existed within the paperwork presented to him.
ADA Concerns Are Central to the Case
A major component of the lawsuit involves allegations tied to disability accommodations. Bosley’s attorneys argue the dealership failed to provide legally required accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act despite being fully aware of his blindness. The complaint claims that failure effectively prevented Bosley from meaningfully reviewing or understanding the final contract terms.
The lawsuit alleges City Chevrolet violated consumer protection laws and engaged in deceptive conduct by taking advantage of Bosley’s inability to independently verify the paperwork.
His attorneys say the dealership prioritized profit over transparency and ethical treatment of a disabled customer. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and additional relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The Case Highlights Ongoing Dealership Trust Issues
While the allegations remain unproven until resolved in court, the case has already generated strong reactions because it touches on concerns many car buyers already have about dealership financing practices.
Disputes involving unexpected fees, financing markups, arbitration clauses, and last-minute contract changes are common sources of frustration throughout the industry. The allegations become especially serious here because the plaintiff claims his disability made him uniquely vulnerable during the transaction process.
Consumer advocates have long criticized the complexity of dealership paperwork and financing structures, arguing they can create confusion even for fully informed buyers carefully reviewing documents.
A hearing on the dealership’s motion to dismiss is reportedly scheduled for June 10. For now, the lawsuit remains unresolved, but the allegations have already placed a spotlight on how dealerships handle accessibility accommodations and financing disclosures during vehicle purchases.