New: a trial court in 1 of every 10 U.S. counties. Read the post
Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementHigh Risk

FTC and Maryland Attorney General Settle with Lindsay Auto Group Over Deceptive Pricing Practices

Lindsay Automotive GroupApril 2, 2026Federal Trade Commission

Penalty Amount

$3,100,000

Summary

The FTC and Maryland Attorney General announced a settlement with Lindsay Automotive Group resolving allegations of deceptive pricing practices, including advertising falsely low car prices and charging unwanted add-ons, costing consumers over $75 million. Lindsay will provide over $75 million in refunds to eligible consumers and pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to Maryland. The settlement also prohibits deceptive advertising practices and requires clear disclosure of total vehicle prices and express consumer consent for charges.

Remedy

Lindsay will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General’s office and provide over $75 million in refunds to eligible consumers who were charged between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025. The settlement order prohibits Lindsay from making deceptive misrepresentations about vehicle pricing, availability, and financing requirements, requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of total vehicle prices (excluding required government charges), and mandates express, informed consumer consent for all charges, including add-ons.

Monetary PenaltyConsumer RefundsConsent DecreeInjunction

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review customer sales, lease, and financing agreements to ensure total vehicle pricing (excluding only required government charges) is clearly and conspicuously disclosed, with express, informed consent clauses included for all optional add-ons, fees, and charges to prevent unauthorized charges. Vendor agreements with advertising agencies, financing providers, and third-party add-on suppliers must be updated to include accurate pricing warranties, prohibitions on misleading financing or rebate representations, and indemnification provisions for civil penalties or consumer refunds resulting from deceptive practices. Additionally, employee commission and training agreements should be reviewed to remove incentives for hiding fees or misrepresenting pricing, with compliance clauses mandating adherence to federal and state consumer protection requirements.

Contract Search Terms

total price disclosureexpress consent for chargesadvertised price accuracymandatory fee disclosurefinancing misrepresentationadd-on product consentdeceptive advertising clausecivil penalty indemnity

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Lindsay Automotive Group

Industry

Automotive

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"Lindsay 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 led to buyers paying thousands of dollars more for their vehicles."
Fine Amount
"Lindsay will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General’s office."
Summary
"The Federal Trade Commission and Maryland Attorney General today announced Lindsay 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 led to buyers paying thousands of dollars more for their vehicles."
Summary
"the agencies’ joint complaint, filed in December 2024, charged Lindsay with systematically deceiving and overcharging car-buying consumers for years, costing them millions of dollars."
Remedy Summary
"the proposed order settling the agencies’ complaint also requires Lindsay to provide the total price of the car, including all mandatory fees, to consumers looking to buy or lease a vehicle."
Remedy Types
"the order also requires Lindsay to clearly and conspicuously disclose the total amount a consumer must pay for the car, excluding only required government charges. Lindsay must also obtain consumers’ express, informed consent before charging them, including for any vehicle-related fees."

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

REPS & Company Inc.

The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.

FTC

Digital Forensics Corporation LLC

The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.

FTC

Greenway Auto Group

The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.

FTC

24 healthcare services companies (not individually named)

The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.

FTC

Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC

$1.9M

The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.