Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.
In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.
Chase Nissan/Manchester City Nissan
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut are taking action against auto dealer Manchester City Nissan (MCN), along with its owner and a number of key employees, for systematically deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-ons, and government fees.
The complaint alleges that the dealership, in addition to deceiving consumers, regularly charges them junk fees for certification, add-on products, and government charges without the consumers’ consent, sometimes costing them thousands of dollars in unwanted and unauthorized charges.
Vroom, Inc. FTC v.
In July 2024, the FTC took action against online used car dealer Vroom for misrepresenting that it thoroughly examined all vehicles before listing them for sale and failing to obtain consumers’ consent to shipment delays or provide prompt refunds when cars weren’t delivered in the time Vroom promised. The company agreed to a proposed settlement that would require the company to pay $1 million to refund consumers harmed by the company’s conduct.
In March 2025, the FTC sent more than $934,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by online used car dealer Vroom’s shipment delays.
Lindsay Chevrolet, et al, FTC and State of Maryland v
The FTC and Maryland Attorney General charged Lindsay Automotive Group with systematically deceiving and overcharging car-buying consumers for years, costing them millions of dollars in junk fees and unwanted add-on products.
Leader Automotive Group, et al., FTC and State of Illinois v.
A group of 10 car dealerships doing business as Leader Automotive Group and their parent company, AutoCanada, will be required to pay $20 million to settle allegations they systematically defrauded consumers looking to buy vehicles as a result of a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and state of Illinois.
In addition to paying $20 million, which will be used to refund harmed consumers, the proposed settlement also would require the companies to make clear disclosures of a car’s offering price—the actual price any consumer can pay to get the car, excluding only required government charges—and get consent from buyers for any charges. The $20 million proposed monetary judgment is the largest the FTC has secured against an auto dealer.
Joint Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya In the Matter of Coulter Motor Company, LLC
Coulter Motor Company and Gregory DePaola, FTC and State of Arizona v.
The Federal Trade Commission and State of Arizona are taking action against Arizona-based Coulter Motor Company for engaging in a wide array of practices that harm consumers, from deceptive online vehicle pricing to charging Latino car buyers more in interest and add-on products. Coulter, along with its former general manager, Gregory Depaola, will pay $2.6 million to settle the lawsuit, most of which will go to provide refunds to consumers harmed by defendants’ allegedly unlawful actions.
Rhinelander Auto
The Federal Trade Commission and State of Wisconsin are taking action against Wisconsin auto dealer group Rhinelander Auto Center, its current and former owners, and general manager Daniel Towne for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds or even thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and for discriminating against American Indian customers by charging them higher financing costs and fees.
The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that will require Rhinelander’s current owners and Towne to stop their unlawful practices and provide $1.1 million to be used for refunds to consumers.
In October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission sent more than $1 million in refunds to consumers who were allegedly harmed by Rhinelander Auto Center’s junk fees and discriminatory practices.
Cycra, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against motocross and ATV parts maker Cycra and its officer, Chad James, for falsely claiming that the company’s products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s proposed order would stop Cycra and James from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment. In June 2023, the Commission announced the finalized order. In May 2024, the FTC sent $180,000 in refunds to consumers in this case.
Passport Automotive Group, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, and Other Relief, for a permanent injunction and other relief, pursuant to Sections 5(a), 13(b), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f. The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and its implementing Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. § 202, in the advertising, sales, and financing of motor vehicles.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $3.3 million to customers of Passport Auto, a Washington D.C.-area auto dealer. In October 2022, the FTC charged Passport with adding hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars in illegal junk fees to car prices and for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers by charging them higher fees and financing costs.
Napleton Auto
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Illinois are taking action against Napleton, a large, multistate auto dealer group based in Illinois, for sneaking illegal junk fees for unwanted “add-ons” onto customers’ bills and for discriminating against Black consumers by charging them more for financing. Napleton will pay $10 million to settle the lawsuit brought by the FTC and the State of Illinois, a record-setting monetary judgment for an FTC auto lending case. The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $9.8 million to consumers who were harmed by Illinois-based Napleton Automotive Group’s junk fees and discriminatory practices.
Tate’s Auto Center
A group of auto dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico must cease business operations as part of a court-approved settlement resolving Federal Trade Commission charges that the dealerships deceived consumers and falsified information on vehicle financing applications.
In a case filed in 2018, the FTC alleged that Tate’s Auto Center of Winslow, Inc.; Tate’s Automotive, Inc.; Tate Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (doing business as Tate’s Auto Center); Tate’s Auto Center of Gallup, Inc.; and Richard Berry, an officer of the dealerships, falsified consumers’ income and down payment information on vehicle financing applications and misrepresented important financial terms in vehicle advertisements. The case continues against Berry and relief defendant Linda Tate.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $415,000 to 3,508 consumers who financed a car or truck at a Tate’s Auto dealership after January 1, 2013, and later had the vehicle repossessed. Tate’s Auto, which operated dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico, allegedly deceived consumers about payment information and falsified information on consumers’ financing applications.