On August 9, 2022, the United States District Court in the Southern District of California issued an order denying Capital One\u2019s motion to dismiss a claim against the finance company in connection with a GAP waiver amending a finance agreement Capital One took assignment of. The plaintiff in the case alleged that the GAP waiver was deceptive and designed to mislead customers and that Capital One interpreted her sales contract and GAP addendum in an unfair, unreasonable, and dishonest manner. The plaintiff also claimed that Capital One violated California\u2019s Commercial Code and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (\u201cCCRAA\u201d). In pertinent part, Capital One moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it was not a party to the GAP addendum. The court rejected this argument and denied Capital One\u2019s Motion to Dismiss concluding that Capital One is a proper defendant in the case as the assignee of the finance agreement that the GAP waiver amended. As a result of the denial of its motion to dismiss, Capital One will be forced to defend itself against the plaintiff\u2019s claims surrounding the GAP waiver.<\/p>\n