Consent judgment bars Charlotte towing owner from certain practices after discrimination and price-gouging allegations during pandemic

State case ends with court order restricting towing and booting practices

A Charlotte towing company owner has been placed under a consent judgment that restricts how he and any towing businesses he owns or manages may operate in North Carolina. The judgment resolves a long-running enforcement case that began during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and expanded to include allegations of racial discrimination alongside claims of unlawful towing, booting and excessive fees.

The case centered on David Satterfield and businesses identified in the litigation as A1 Towing Solutions and Automobile Recovery & Parking Enforcement. The state’s original claims focused on towing and immobilizing commercial trucks during the declared emergency period and demanding thousands of dollars for release, sometimes involving loads of essential goods. The state later added claims that the challenged conduct disproportionately affected Black drivers and communities.

Restitution and operational limits

Under the consent judgment, restitution totaling $30,000 is to be paid to drivers whose vehicles were unlawfully towed or who were required to pay excessive fees to recover their vehicles. The order also sets out a list of prohibited conduct intended to prevent nonconsensual towing and inflated charges.

• Towing is barred without first obtaining permission from the owner of the property where the vehicle is located.
• Charging excessive amounts for towing is prohibited.
• Booting commercial vehicles is prohibited.
• Threats toward vehicle owners or drivers are prohibited.
• Towing from private lots is restricted unless the lots are clearly marked with signs.
• Holding commercial cargo obtained through a nonconsensual tow is prohibited.
• Separately charging to tow and impound separate parts of a tractor-trailer is prohibited.
• Booting a vehicle while a driver is inside is prohibited unless the driver is first informed or given a chance to move.
• Charging DMV filing fees when no such fee is required is prohibited.
• Requiring scheduled pickup and then charging for delays caused by the towing company is prohibited.

No admission of wrongdoing, penalties for violations

The consent judgment resolves the case without an admission of wrongdoing. However, it includes a financial consequence designed to deter future violations: Satterfield would be required to pay the state $110,000 if he breaks the terms of the judgment.

The consent judgment functions as both a settlement and a set of enforceable operating rules, using court supervision to curb practices that were alleged to be predatory during an emergency period.

Broader regulatory backdrop

The underlying enforcement action arose during a period when North Carolina’s price-gouging restrictions were activated by a declared state of emergency. The towing dispute has also unfolded amid continuing scrutiny of nonconsensual towing and booting in Charlotte, including debate over whether additional statewide rules are needed to regulate fees, signage requirements and consumer access to vehicles and property after a tow.