Displaying 1 - 20 of 389
FTC Finalizes Order Settling Allegations that GM and OnStar Collected and Sold Geolocation Data Without Consumers’ Informed Consent
General Motors LLC., et al., In the Matter of
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.
Valvoline and Greenbriar; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment
FTC Requires Divestiture of Oil Change Shops in Valvoline-Greenbriar Deal
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (Information Furnishers Rule)
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.
Automobile Dealers and the FTC’s Safeguards Rule Frequently Asked Questions
FTC Provides Guidance on Updated Safeguards Rule
FTC Sends More Than $934,000 in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Vroom’s Failed Delivery Promises
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.
General Motors and OnStar, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension (Alternative Fuels Rule)
FTC Takes Action Against General Motors for Sharing Drivers’ Precise Location and Driving Behavior Data Without Consent
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.