Asbury Automotive Group Lawsuit: FTC Case and Court Challenge

The main lawsuit involving Asbury Automotive Group is a Federal Trade Commission enforcement action filed in August 2024, accusing three of the company’s Texas dealerships of charging customers for add-on products they never agreed to and, originally, of charging Black and Latino buyers more than White buyers for the same products. As of mid-2026, the case is pending but effectively frozen while Asbury challenges the FTC’s authority to hear it in federal court.

What the FTC Alleges

The FTC voted unanimously on August 16, 2024, to file an administrative complaint against Asbury, three dealerships operating under the David McDavid name, and general manager Ali Benli. The dealerships are David McDavid Ford in Fort Worth, David McDavid Honda of Frisco, and David McDavid Honda of Irving.¹

At the center of the complaint is a practice the agency calls “payment packing.” Salespeople allegedly steered customers into agreeing to a monthly payment higher than what the car itself required, then filled the difference by adding products to the contract without permission. The add-ons included chemical coatings, extended service contracts, and life and disability insurance.¹

Customers, the FTC says, were charged for products they had declined, had never been told about, or had been falsely told were required. Electronic signing devices allegedly showed buyers only where to sign rather than what they were signing, which made the extra charges hard to catch. A customer survey conducted at the three dealerships found that as many as 75 percent reported being charged for products they had not authorized or had been misled into believing were mandatory.¹

The Discrimination Count and Why It Was Dropped

The original complaint also alleged the dealerships violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by charging Black and Latino customers more for the same add-ons. According to company records the FTC reviewed, Black buyers financing a vehicle paid an average of $298 more, and Latino buyers an average of $214 more, than non-Latino White buyers for the same products. The agency said there was “no non-discriminatory reason” for the gap.¹

That count no longer exists. In May 2025, FTC complaint counsel moved to strike Count IV, which rested on a disparate-impact theory, citing Executive Order No. 14281 issued the month before. The order directed the agency to review pending proceedings built on disparate impact, and Asbury’s case was the only pending FTC complaint with an ECOA count issued before the order. The Commission granted the motion on July 17, 2025, and the amended complaint dropped the discrimination allegations entirely.²³ The deception and unauthorized-charge counts remained.

Who Is Named

The respondents are Asbury Automotive Group, the three David McDavid dealerships in Texas, and one individual: Ali Benli. The FTC identifies Benli as the general manager who at various times ran all three stores and controlled their financing, sales, and add-on policies. The complaint says he received direct notice of consumer complaints about unauthorized charges, tracked press coverage and public complaints, and pressured customers to remove negative online reviews.⁴ No other executives or managers were named.⁵

Asbury’s Federal Court Challenge

Instead of fighting the allegations inside the FTC’s administrative process, Asbury sued the agency in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The company argued the FTC’s in-house adjudication violates Fifth Amendment due process, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and the separation of powers under Article III, and it also attacked the removal protections shielding FTC commissioners and administrative law judges.

On August 11, 2025, Judge Reed O’Connor denied Asbury’s request for a preliminary injunction and threw out most of the constitutional claims. The court said it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Fifth and Seventh Amendment arguments and that the removal-protection claims failed as a matter of law. One argument survived: Asbury’s contention that the FTC is improperly deciding “private rights” outside an Article III court. Judge O’Connor invited the parties to brief that question for summary judgment.⁶

Asbury moved for reconsideration, pointing to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, which held that dual-layer removal protections for NLRB judges and members were unconstitutional and that being forced to appear before such officials was itself irreparable harm.⁷ Asbury argued the same reasoning applies to the FTC. The FTC opposed the motion. Asbury separately appealed to the Fifth Circuit in September 2025; the appeal remains active, with the company having filed a brief as of May 2026.⁸

The proceedings were complicated further in early 2025 when President Trump fired FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Asbury moved for an indefinite halt to the administrative case, arguing the firings left the agency without a quorum. Judge O’Connor ordered supplemental briefing.⁹¹⁰ The two former commissioners publicly said their removals violated federal law and Supreme Court precedent.

Where the Case Stands

The FTC case is pending but stalled. A late-November 2025 order had reset the evidentiary hearing for August 6, 2026.¹¹ On March 17, 2026, the Commission granted a joint motion for a further stay and continuance, putting the administrative proceeding on hold again.¹² The Fifth Circuit appeal is still pending, and the Article III private-rights question Judge O’Connor left open has not been decided.

The Separate Data Breach Lawsuits

A different set of cases against Asbury has nothing to do with the FTC. On or around December 25, 2023, an unauthorized third party accessed parts of the company’s network and compromised names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and state ID numbers belonging to thousands of current, former, and prospective employees.¹³

At least two suits followed. A proposed class action, Aviles v. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., was filed in May 2024 in the Northern District of Georgia and alleged the company failed to protect the data and waited roughly four months to notify affected people.¹³ A former sales consultant filed a similar suit alleging preventable security failures.¹⁴ A separate action brought by six current and former employees has been resolved through a settlement whose terms were not made public.¹⁵

1
FTC. FTC Takes Action Against Auto Dealer Group Asbury Automotive Discriminating Against Black Latino
2
FTC. Motion to Amend Complaint
3
FTC. Amended Stipulation
4
FTC. Administrative Complaint, Docket No. D-9436
5
FTC. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al. – Case Page
6
Automotive News. Asbury FTC Ruling
7
Holland & Knight. Fifth Circuit Dual Removal Protections for NLRB ALJs Board Members
8
CourtListener. Asbury Automotive v. FTC, Case 25-11102
9
Automotive News. Asbury FTC Trump Commissioner Firings
10
CourtListener. Asbury Automotive Group Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, 4:24-cv-00950
11
Nelson Mullins. FTC Administrative Action Delayed
12
FTC. Order Granting Stay and Continuance
13
ClassAction.org. Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Asbury Automotive
14
Bloomberg Law. Asbury Automotive Group Sued by Ex-Employee Over Data Breach
15
Automotive News. Asbury Data Settlement