In a recent article, reporter Dylan Goetz of MLive explains that LaFontaine Chevrolet Buick GMC of St. Clair in China Township briefly lost its license after the Michigan Department of State (MDOS) accused the store of serious violations of the Michigan Vehicle Code.
According to Goetz, regulators said the dealership had been presenting used vehicles to customers as if they were new.
The state claimed investigators found vehicles that had already been registered to the dealership and used as loaners, only to later be sold as “new” retail units.
Goetz notes that MDOS said these alleged violations were uncovered by its own regulatory staff during an investigation, and that the dealer was already under an existing probationary agreement when the new accusations surfaced.
That context is important, because it suggests this wasn’t the first time regulators had concerns about the same automotive group.
Attorney and YouTube commentator Steve Lehto, in his update video on the case, points out that state officials also claimed the dealership failed to properly complete title and registration documents, allegedly checking the “new” box on cars that had already been titled. That’s not just a paperwork glitch in his view – that goes straight to how the law defines what you are actually buying.
Dealer Blames Paperwork, Not a Scheme
In a statement quoted by Dylan Goetz, LaFontaine pushed back hard on the idea that there was any intentional scheme.
The dealership said that within a day of receiving the suspension notice, “the State of Michigan fully lifted the suspension,” and by the following day the store was “100% back in business across both sales and service operations.”
LaFontaine framed the episode as “purely administrative in nature,” blaming “confusion between automaker program requirements, dealer processes, and the State’s outdated regulatory statutes.”
Goetz reports that LaFontaine flatly denied trying to pass off used cars as new, insisting there was “no scheme” to deceive customers. The company emphasized that its “commitment to integrity, transparency, and the trust of our guests remains unwavering,” and that it continues to work closely with its automaker and lender partners.
Here’s where the spin really shows. When a dealer calls a state statute “outdated,” it usually means the law makes their preferred business model harder, not that the rule is unclear.
The statement reads like something carefully crafted by lawyers and PR staff: admit confusion, complain about old rules, but never admit that the customer was misled.
What Michigan Law Actually Says Is ‘New’
Steve Lehto spends much of his video walking viewers through what Michigan law actually says about new versus used vehicles. He notes there is a specific statute in the Michigan Compiled Laws that controls this question for dealers.
Lehto explains that under that law, once a vehicle has been titled even one time, it becomes “used” for dealer-sale purposes – and it doesn’t matter who the first title holder was. If the dealership itself titles the car in its own name to use it as a service loaner or rental, that still uses up the “new” status.
He points to the RD-108, Michigan’s standard title and registration application. On that form, Lehto says, the dealer has to choose one of three boxes for the car being sold: “new,” “used,” or “demo.”
The state anticipated loaner or demo situations, which is why that third box exists, but none of that changes the core rule: a car can only be sold as “new” once.
Lehto adds that, according to a prior news release, state officials said some of the vehicles had up to 6,000 miles on them. But he stresses that the mileage is not the real problem here. The legal trigger is prior titling and registration, not how many miles are on the odometer.
LaFontaine, in its statement quoted by Goetz, argues that under manufacturer and lender definitions, cars used in loaner or rental programs still qualify as “new” for incentives and warranties.
That may be true inside automaker programs, but the state’s legal definition is different – and the dealership knows or should know it.
One-Day Reinstatement Raises Eyebrows
Goetz reports that LaFontaine reached an agreement with the state to continue operating, but under an “extended probationary period” and with a $25,000 fine attached. The Michigan Department of State confirmed to him that the suspension had indeed been lifted.
In his video, Steve Lehto notes how quickly things moved. He points out that state officials suspended the license on November 4, then reissued it after an agreement by November 6.
Lehto jokes that he predicted something like this would happen because another store in the same LaFontaine automotive group previously had a similar issue resolved in basically one day.
The dealership sees that speed as proof the state overreacted. In the statement Goetz quotes, LaFontaine says the quick resolution “reinforces our belief that the initial action was more of a headline-driven move by the state than a substantive compliance concern.”
They also stress that there was “no imminent threat to public safety, no systemic scheme and absolutely no guest impact whatsoever.”
Lehto, however, reads the situation differently. He says the law on when a vehicle becomes “used” has been on the books for a long time, and that most Michigan dealers manage to follow it without getting into trouble.
From his perspective as a lawyer who has handled auto cases for decades, this is not some mysterious gray area that suddenly surprised the industry.
The reality is probably somewhere in between. The state clearly wanted to send a message by suspending the license, and the dealer clearly had enough leverage and resources to negotiate its way back very quickly. For the average car buyer, that combination doesn’t exactly scream “strong consumer protection.”
Why Consumers Still Struggle To Fight Back
Lehto takes time in his video to explain why individual customers often have a hard time going after dealers on their own in situations like this.
He notes that Michigan once had a powerful law – the Michigan Consumer Protection Act – that explicitly covered a merchant selling something used as if it were new. Under that older version, a consumer could sue, win damages, and get their attorney’s fees covered. That fee-shifting piece made it affordable to take on a dealership.
Lehto says the Michigan Supreme Court later gutted that law’s usefulness against many businesses, including car dealers. Without that statute working the way it used to, there’s often no way for a customer to get their attorney fees paid even if they win.
That means most lawyers can’t afford to take smaller individual cases on contingency, because the costs quickly outrun the likely recovery.
As Lehto puts it, when the other side knows you are paying your own lawyer out of pocket, they can drag things out and make it too expensive to continue. In his view, that’s why actions by a state regulatory agency like MDOS are sometimes the only realistic way to hold a dealer accountable, even if the result is just a fine, some probation, and a promise to do better.
From a consumer standpoint, that’s a pretty thin safety net. If you personally bought one of these loaner vehicles as “new,” you may never even hear about the enforcement, let alone get compensated, unless the dealer and state quietly worked something out behind the scenes.
Is This About ‘Outdated’ Law – Or About Trust?
Both Dylan Goetz and Steve Lehto make it clear that the facts are not really in dispute: LaFontaine titled vehicles in its own name, used them as loaners, then later sold them in a way the state says violated the “new vs. used” rules.
LaFontaine’s position, as reported by Goetz, is that this was an administrative misunderstanding between modern industry practices and old state statutes. The company wants lawmakers and regulators to update Michigan law so that the way manufacturers define “new” lines up with how the state does it.
Lehto doesn’t argue against modernizing the statute, but he reminds viewers that, under current law, dealers have known for years exactly how a “new” vehicle must be treated.
From his perspective, calling the rule “outdated” doesn’t erase the fact that it still exists and still protects buyers who reasonably think “new” means “no prior owner, no prior title.”
For shoppers, this case is a reminder to read contracts carefully, ask direct questions, and get clear answers in writing before signing. If a car has been used as a loaner, demo, or anything similar, many customers would want to know – and they’d probably expect a discount.
At the end of the day, trust is what really took a hit here. When a dealer can be accused of selling used cars as new, fined, put on probation, and then restored to full operation in a day or two, it raises a fair question: is the system designed to protect buyers, or to keep the wheels of the auto business turning with as little friction as possible?
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
