The Subaru community is up in arms after reports surfaced that Austin Subaru, part of the Continental Automotive Group in Texas, reclaimed its golden retriever “mascot,” Rally, from the home of a former employee who had cared for the dog for three years.
According to a viral thread on r/Subaru, Rally had lived full-time with the dealership’s marketing employee, which was described by commenters as his “parent,” until that employee was laid off. Despite their close bond and the employee’s plea to adopt the dog permanently, Austin Subaru reportedly demanded Rally’s return, sparking an online backlash that’s quickly spreading beyond car enthusiast circles.
“If you think dogs are family members and not merely marketing tools, let the dealership and Subaru know,” wrote Reddit user u/yaupon.
Rally, a golden retriever featured in the dealership’s local ads and social media campaigns, was seen by many customers as the friendly face of Austin Subaru. Regulars say he often greeted service customers and appeared in community outreach events.
“He was a symbol of the dealership’s connection to Austin’s dog-loving culture,” one commenter said. “Everyone knew Rally.”
But when the marketing employee who’d cared for him was laid off, the dealership allegedly refused to allow Rally to remain with them, citing ownership rights. While no official statement has been released clarifying the decision, Redditors claim that Austin Subaru is treating Rally as a company asset… property, not a pet.
Automated Apologies From Texas Dealership
The outrage intensified after one user, u/Maxie0921, shared the dealership’s response to their complaint. The email, signed by “Milo Rivera, remote sales assistant,” acknowledged the user’s concern about Rally before pivoting into a car sales pitch:
“I’m sorry to hear about your concern regarding the treatment of a dog—thank you for bringing it to our attention… You’re also interested in learning about the 2025 Subaru full line of new vehicles.”
The response was widely mocked online. “Wait. You said: I don’t like what you’re doing to that dog. And they said: Yeah, sorry that upset you. Want to hear about the new models?” one commenter quipped, calling the reply tone-deaf.
Many speculated the message was written by an AI chatbot, highlighting a growing frustration with automated corporate communication. “It doesn’t choose,” another user explained. “It just takes the keywords of your message… instead of having a human being reply.”
The incident has reportedly cost Austin Subaru goodwill among its loyal customer base. Several local Subaru owners vowed to take their business elsewhere.
“We were about to purchase a new Ascent there. We will definitely be taking our business elsewhere,” wrote one commenter.
Others pointed to nearby dealerships, like City Limits Subaru in Buda, as better-run alternatives.
Austin Subaru’s parent company, Continental Automotive Group, has already been under scrutiny after its owner faced multiple arson charges, as users in the thread noted. While the Rally controversy is smaller in scale, it has become symbolic of broader discontent with corporate ethics and how companies handle the living beings they use for branding.
“This isn’t about legality,” one Redditor wrote. “It’s about decency. Rally isn’t a prop, he’s family.”
As of publication, neither Austin Subaru nor Subaru of America has issued a public comment on Rally’s status. Calls and emails to the Texas dealership have gone unanswered, though local news outlets, including KXAN, are reportedly investigating the story.
Meanwhile, the thread on r/Subaru continues to gain traction, with users urging Subaru fans nationwide to demand accountability. It all reflects rather poorly on Subaru, a car brand that has long been beloved by a community of enthusiasts for iconic rally cars that have spawned a community of enthusiasts. Subarus have been a tuner car of choice since the late 90s, with Subaru tuners modifying the beloved WRX STI with custom tunes across the globe.
Whether Rally’s story ends in reunion or corporate stalemate remains to be seen, but the court of public opinion has already spoken.
