FTC and Maryland Attorney General Secure Refunds and Penalties Against Auto Group for Alleged Deceptive Pricing Practices

On April 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and Maryland Attorney General today announced that an automotive group and its executives will return money to resolve allegations that they deceived consumers for years with falsely advertised low prices and unwanted add-ons that purportedly led to buyers paying thousands of dollars more for their vehicles.

Consumers that were allegedly charged a total of more than $75 million between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025, may be eligible for redress.  In addition, the auto group will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General’s office.  The proposed order settling the agencies’ complaint also requires the auto group to provide the total price of the car, including all mandatory fees, to consumers looking to buy or lease a vehicle.

“[The auto group] misled consumers by advertising false low car prices and then adding mandatory fees and other charges during the car buying process,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The Trump-Vance FTC is focused on ensuring that auto dealers competitors’ are transparently competing on price.”

“We filed this lawsuit because [the auto dealiership] misled Maryland car buyers into overpaying for their vehicles. This settlement puts money back in Marylanders’ pockets and puts a stop to these predatory practices,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. “Our office is committed to ensuring that every Maryland consumer who does business with a car dealership is treated fairly.”

The agencies’ joint complaint, filed in December 2024, charged the auto dealier with systematically deceiving and overcharging car-buying consumers for years, costing them millions of dollars. The complaint named three dealerships and their management company, along with the company’s part-owner and president, COO and the dealerships’ former general manager as defendants.

According to the complaint, the auto dealer touted deceptively low prices and then charged the vast majority of consumers hundreds or thousands of dollars more once they arrived at the dealership.  Teh auto dealer alleged often claimed consumers could not get the advertised prices because they did not qualify for a litany of rebates included in the advertised price.

The complaint also alleged that the auto dealer deceptively told consumers they had to finance through the dealership to get the advertised price instead of the financing the consumers already had, including military consumers who had financing from their military branch’s credit union.

The agencies also alleged the auto dealer charged consumers for add-ons like extra service plans, tire and rim protection, and “guaranteed asset protection” that consumers did not want or agree to buy.  According to the complaint, these additional charges often added hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the purchase.

To address the alleged deceptive conduct set forth in the complaint, the proposed order prohibits specific misrepresentations in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, financing, leasing, or selling motor vehicles, including misrepresentations about whether vehicles are available at the advertised prices, and whether any type or source of financing is required, including to buy a vehicle or to get a particular price or other terms.

The order also requires the auto dealership to clearly and conspicuously disclose the total amount a consumer must pay for the car, excluding only required government charges.  The auto dealer  must also obtain consumers’ express, informed consent before charging them, including for any vehicle-related fees.

The FTC vote approving filing of the proposed order was 2-0.  FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson joined by Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a separate statement.

Richard B. Newman is an attorney general subpoena defense lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP. 

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should not be construed as legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.