Car shopping is supposed to be stressful because you are picking the right model, not because the price keeps changing once you sit down at the desk. But that is exactly what federal and state regulators say happened at Lindsay Automotive Group dealerships, in a case that could put more than $75 million back into consumers\u2019 pockets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On April 2, the Federal Trade Commission<\/a> and the Maryland attorney general announced a proposed settlement that includes full refunds of allegedly improper charges, plus a $3.1 million<\/strong> civil penalty and strict new rules for how the dealerships advertise prices and add fees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is a major move in the long-running fight over \u201cjunk fees\u201d in the auto market, and it lands right where modern car buying now lives: on online listings and financing screens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FTC and Maryland allege Lindsay dealerships advertised low vehicle prices that many buyers could not actually get. Once customers arrived, regulators say they were told they did not qualify for various rebates that were baked into the advertised price, even when those conditions were unrealistic or never clearly disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the complaint<\/a>, the agencies point to a random sample of transactions from April 2020 through March 2023 involving third-party listing sites such as CarGurus<\/a> and Cars.com. They say over 88% of buyers in that sample paid more than the advertised price, and most of those buyers paid more than $2,000 extra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One detail in the filing feels almost too familiar if you have ever spent an afternoon at a dealership and wondered why it takes so long. The complaint quotes a Lindsay marketing manager saying \u201cstatistically the customer is ours to lose at that point,\u201d after the time investment of test drives and paperwork makes it harder to walk away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regulators also allege buyers were pushed into dealership-arranged financing as a condition of getting the advertised price. In plain terms, you show up with a preapproval, but are told it \u201cdoes not count\u201d unless the dealer writes the loan, and that can be an expensive pivot when rates and terms change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complaint describes one consumer who found a car advertised for $21,200 on a credit union car-buying site and had a credit union preapproval at 4.99% for 60 months. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the filing, the consumer ended up with dealership financing at 7.39% for 66 months, which the complaint says would add about $2,180 over the life of the loan, and the buyer later discovered the vehicle price charged was $24,776.93 for the same car.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there are the add-ons<\/a> \u2013 the extra products that can quietly hitch a ride into the deal. The agencies allege Lindsay charged consumers for items such as service contracts, tire and rim products, dent protection, and \u201cguaranteed asset protection<\/a>\u201d even when consumers did not agree to buy them or were told they were mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The headline number is the refunds, not the fine. The FTC says more than $75 million in charges from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2025, may be eligible for consumer redress, while the Maryland attorney general says the final refund total is still to be determined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The civil penalty is $3.1 million, and under the stipulated order<\/a> it is directed to the Maryland attorney general for consumer protection enforcement, education, or other lawful public purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By comparison, that penalty is a small fraction of the alleged overcharges, which helps explain why this settlement is being framed as \u201cfull refunds\u201d rather than a symbolic slap on the wrist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eligibility is also more specific than many shoppers might assume. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The order lays out that consumers who bought or leased from Lindsay Ford between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025 may qualify if they viewed an ad listing the price before the deal and either paid more than that advertised price or paid for an add-on product or service, with certain exclusions for auction, business, dealer, or fleet purchases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For Lindsay Chevrolet and Lindsay CDJR, the claims process in the order is tied to Maryland residents<\/strong> who purchased or leased vehicles at those stores under similar conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond refunds, the case is really about a shifting definition of \u201cthe price.\u201d Under the proposed order, the defendants are barred from misrepresenting key points such as the cost or terms of buying, the availability of a vehicle at an advertised price, whether fees are optional or required, and whether a particular source of financing is required to get a deal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is also a practical requirement that hits where shoppers start the journey today, on screens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The order requires \u201cTotal Price\u201d to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously as the most prominent item in visual disclosures, and it ties that expectation to third-party advertising by requiring the defendants to provide the Total Price to third parties and take steps within their control to ensure it is displayed properly. That matters because the modern showroom often begins on a listing site, not a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FTC and Maryland also emphasize consent. The order requires \u201cexpress, informed consent\u201d before charging consumers, including for vehicle-related fees, which targets the classic end-of-day trap of being handed a thick stack of papers and being asked to sign \u201cjust one more thing\u201d so you can finally go home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you think you might be eligible, the agencies say the Maryland attorney general\u2019s office will send notices to consumers who may qualify, and the order describes a claims administrator process tied to mailed claim notices and forms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The order also states consumers generally have 180 days<\/strong> from the date of mailing to return a claim form, and the template notice language says refunds could be sent within 30 to 60 days<\/strong> after a completed claim is submitted, though real timelines can vary depending on verification and volume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also be careful, because big refund programs<\/a> can attract copycats. The FTC explicitly warns that it will not demand money, make threats, or tell consumers to transfer money, and legitimate notices should not require you to pay to get your refund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For everyone else still shopping, the basics remain your best defense. Ask for the out the door price in writing, insist on an itemized list of every fee and add-on, and compare the total financed amount against what you expected before you focus on the monthly payment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a dealer says you must finance through them to get the advertised price, treat that as a bright red flag and be ready to walk, even if it means one more trip through traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe press release was published on the Federal Trade Commission<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Car shopping is supposed to be stressful because you are picking the right model, not because the price keeps changing … <\/p>\nWhat regulators say happened<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: A Chinese satellite network is becoming the hidden guide for Iran\u2019s weapons, and the bigger warning is what happens when jamming stops working<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
The financing squeeze and the add-on stack<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Refunds that dwarf the penalty<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A new playbook for dealership ads in the online era<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: This is no longer just an airline collapse: the bankruptcy exposes how fragile island infrastructure becomes when airports are blocked<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
What car shoppers should keep in mind now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: A new wage fight is putting large retail footprints under pressure in Rhode Island, and the real risk is what happens if other states copy it<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n