Case Law Update: Ramskog v. Parks Automotive Group — AAA Refused to Hear the Dealer's Arbitration Case

On August 14, 2026, two consumers filed a twelve-count complaint against a Florida new-car dealer and its finance assignee in Ramskog v. Parks Automotive Group, Inc., No. 6:26-cv-01788, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Plaintiffs Angelique Camp Ramskog and Aidan Cotton sued Parks Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Parks Toyota of DeLand, along with Global Lending Services LLC, which is named as the assignee and present holder of the retail installment sale contract under the FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 433.2. The docket shows the case assigned to Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway as No. 6:26-cv-01788-AGM-RMN, summonses issued August 17, 2026, and no answer on file as of August 21, 2026. Everything below is an allegation, not a finding, and the court has not ruled on any of it.

What the Complaint Alleges Happened at the Dealership

According to the complaint, the dealer advertised a 2022 Honda HR-V EX at $14,000.00 and equipped with driver-assistance features that Ms. Ramskog, who has physical disabilities, had told the salesman she required to drive safely. Plaintiffs allege the vehicle she was sold lacks that equipment, that the cash price became $16,995.00, and that $19,640.11 was financed rather than the $14,927.00 the parties had agreed, at 23.81% APR over 72 months for a disclosed Total Sale Price of $40,133.52. They further allege the car was represented as a one-owner, private-use vehicle when it had multiple prior owners and had been a rental.

The pleading also alleges that two materially different executed versions of the same retail installment sale contract exist for this single transaction, with inconsistent cash prices, inconsistent sales-tax figures, and two different named service contract providers.

The Service Contract Allegations

Two allegations here are worth reading closely if you buy a service contract at the finance desk. First, plaintiffs allege the service contract charge was increased from the agreed $1,595.00 to $2,838.00 “without disclosure or agreement,” and that this, with an undisclosed $2,995.00 non-itemized package charge, produced $4,238.00 in charges they say they never agreed to. Second, one executed contract version identifies the service contract provider as “USWC SERVICE CONTRACT” while the other identifies it as “AGWS SERVICE CONTRACT.”

The complaint also invokes a federal rule that many buyers never hear about. Count XII pleads that any disclaimer of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is ineffective under 15 U.S.C. § 2308(a)(2) and (c) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act “because Parks entered into a service contract with Plaintiffs on the date of sale.” Under that section, a supplier who sells a service contract to a buyer within 90 days of sale generally may not disclaim or modify implied warranties on that product. Counts VIII and XII arise under Magnuson-Moss; the rest plead FDUTPA, misleading advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41, fraud in the inducement, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Arbitration Clause the Named Forum Would Not Administer

The most unusual allegation concerns arbitration. Plaintiffs say they did what the contract told them to do: on April 6, 2026 they filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association under its Consumer Arbitration Rules, docketed as AAA Case No. 01-26-0001-6510, and paid the consumer filing fee. On May 11, 2026, according to the complaint, the AAA wrote to both parties and declined the case, stating that “[b]efore the filing of this arbitration, Parks Automotive Group, Inc. dba Parks Toyota of Deland failed to comply with the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) policies regarding consumer claims, set forth in the Consumer Due Process Protocol and the Consumer Arbitration Rules, including the Costs of Arbitration, and/or removed themselves from the Consumer Clause Registry … . Therefore, we must decline to administer this claim and any other claims between this business and its consumers at this time.”

The complaint quotes the association's further advice that under Consumer Rule R-10(b), “should the AAA decline to administer an arbitration, either party may choose to submit its dispute to the appropriate court for resolution” — the stated basis for filing in federal court. Count IV asks the court, under Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1), to declare it a deceptive and unfair practice to present consumers with a mandatory arbitration clause and class-action waiver while the designated forum will refuse the case.

What This Means If You Have a Vehicle Service Contract Claim

This is one newly filed complaint, and a complaint proves nothing. Still, three practical points travel beyond it:

• An arbitration clause is not automatically a dead end. Consumer arbitration providers maintain registry and due-process requirements that the business, not the consumer, must satisfy. If the named provider declines to administer, its own rules may point the dispute back to court — though that turns on the contract language, the provider's rules, and the court.
• A service contract sold with the vehicle can affect an “as-is” disclaimer. Magnuson-Moss, 15 U.S.C. § 2308, limits a supplier's ability to disclaim implied warranties when it also sells a service contract within 90 days. Keep that paperwork with the sale documents.
• Compare the numbers on every executed copy. Buyer's order, retail installment sale contract, and service contract should agree on price, fees, provider name, and term. Ask for a complete copy of everything you signed at delivery.

Case details: Ramskog v. Parks Automotive Group, Inc., No. 6:26-cv-01788-AGM-RMN (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division). Complaint filed August 14, 2026; docket current as of August 21, 2026.

If a vehicle service contract or extended warranty claim of yours has been denied, a lawyer can review the contract and the denial and explain your options. Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.

This article summarizes publicly available court filings as of August 21, 2026 and is provided for general information. It is not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Statements in a complaint are allegations by one party, not established facts. For background on how these contracts work, see What Is a Vehicle Service Contract?