Â鶹´«Ã½

Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 384

Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission Act

Mission
Competition
Consumer Protection
Law
15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission Act is the primary statute of the Commission. Under this Act, as amended, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and...

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

The Â鶹´«Ã½ 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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3135
Docket Number
9436
Case Status
Pending

Coulter Motor Company and Gregory DePaola, FTC and State of Arizona v.

The Â鶹´«Ã½ 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.

Type of Action
Â鶹´«Ã½
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3033
Case Status
Pending

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.

Type of Action
Â鶹´«Ã½
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2123138
Case Status
Pending

Chase Nissan/Manchester City Nissan

The Â鶹´«Ã½ 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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

FTC Pauses CARS Rule Effective Date

Date
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission has issued an order postponing the effective date of the Combatting Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule while a legal challenge against the rule is pending. Two industry groups...