Several major automotive lawsuits are shaping what car buyers, owners, and independent repair shops can expect in 2025 and 2026. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are pursuing dealer groups over junk fees and bait-and-switch pricing, with a record $20 million settlement against Illinois-based Leader Automotive Group leading the way. At the same time, courts are hearing right-to-repair challenges, antitrust claims against automakers that lock independent mechanics out of their vehicles, and constitutional fights over whether manufacturers like Rivian can sell directly to consumers.
The $20 Million Leader Automotive Settlement
The FTC and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a joint complaint on December 19, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 24-cv-13047) against Leader Automotive Group, its Canadian parent AutoCanada, and former U.S. operations vice president James Douvas. A federal court entered the stipulated order on January 2, 2025. The $20 million payment is the largest monetary judgment the FTC has ever obtained against an auto dealer group.1Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Illinois Take Action Against Leader Automotive Group
The complaint described a systematic pattern across 13 Illinois dealerships spanning brands including Toyota, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Porsche, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Volkswagen, and Lincoln. Advertised low prices allegedly gave way to undisclosed “market adjustments,” “reconditioning” fees, and mandatory add-ons that pushed the real cost well past the sticker. According to the FTC, nearly 80 percent of customers were charged for products like protective coatings, LoJack, GAP coverage, and service contracts without their consent, or after being falsely told the charges were mandatory. One dealership reportedly posted over 99 percent profit margins on add-on products, and commissions on those products sometimes exceeded what salespeople earned on the vehicle itself.2Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. FTC and Illinois AG Secure $20M Settlement With Leader Automotive Group
Other alleged conduct included charging for reconditioning work and coatings that were never performed, selling vehicles as “certified pre-owned” without doing the certification work or securing the manufacturer’s extended warranty, and selling Canadian-market gray-market cars without disclosing that importing them voids the original warranty. Management also allegedly directed employees to post fake positive reviews, offered bonuses for compliance, and in one instance withheld a buyer’s keys until the buyer posted a positive review.1Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Illinois Take Action Against Leader Automotive Group
Beyond the $20 million refund fund, the consent order requires the companies to disclose the actual “offering price” every consumer can pay (excluding only government-mandated charges) in all advertising, to provide the total cost of the vehicle when discussing financing or leasing, and to get express informed consent before charging for any add-on.3Federal Trade Commission. Leader Automotive Group, Et Al. (FTC, State of Illinois v.)
The corporate settlement did not resolve the case against Douvas personally. The FTC and Illinois AG are pursuing a separate action against him for allegedly directing the deceptive practices, and Automotive News reported the claim at $216 million.4Automotive News. Dealer VP Deceptive Charges A federal judge in Chicago denied his motion to dismiss in May 2025, and the case remained pending as of mid-2026.5CCH. FTC v. ACIA17 Automotive Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order
Consumers who believe they were harmed can contact the FTC Consumer Response Center at 877-382-4357 or file a report at reportfraud.ftc.gov. A formal claims administrator and per-consumer payout amounts had not been announced publicly as of the most recent available information.1Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Illinois Take Action Against Leader Automotive Group
The FTC’s Wider Crackdown on Dealer Deception
Leader Automotive is not an isolated case. The FTC has opened parallel actions against several dealer groups using its authority under the FTC Act and the Dodd-Frank Act’s expanded oversight of motor vehicle dealers.6Federal Trade Commission. Auto Marketplace
The FTC and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sued Manchester City Nissan (operated by Chase Nissan) and six named individuals in January 2024. In one instance cited in the complaint, a customer was charged a $5,295.65 “inspection fee” on a vehicle that had already been inspected; another sale carried more than $7,000 in unauthorized add-ons.7Connecticut Attorney General. Attorney General Tong, FTC Take Action Against Manchester City Nissan Two individual defendants agreed to stipulated orders in September 2025; the rest of the case remained pending.8Federal Trade Commission. Chase Nissan/Manchester City Nissan
Other recent FTC cases in the sector include actions against Asbury Automotive Group (August 2024, discrimination and unwanted add-ons), Lindsay Chevrolet (December 2024, deceptive pricing), Rhinelander Auto (October 2024, discriminatory financing and junk fees), and Coulter Motor Company (August 2024, deceptive pricing and discrimination).6Federal Trade Commission. Auto Marketplace
In March 2026, the FTC sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups nationwide, identifying specific practices the agency considers illegal: advertising prices that exclude mandatory fees, conditioning prices on dealer financing, requiring buyers to purchase add-ons not included in the listed price, and advertising vehicles that don’t actually exist or aren’t available. The agency said it would monitor the market and “take additional action as warranted.”9Federal Trade Commission. FTC Warns 97 Auto Dealership Groups About Deceptive Pricing
Why There’s No Industry-Wide Rule Protecting Buyers
The FTC tried to solve dealer deception with a single regulation. The Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule (CARS Rule) was announced in December 2023 to impose industry-wide requirements against junk fees and bait-and-switch tactics. The National Automobile Dealers Association and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association challenged it in the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the rule 2-1 on January 27, 2025, on procedural grounds: the FTC had failed to issue the required Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The court did not address the rule’s substance. The FTC formally withdrew the CARS Rule effective February 12, 2026, leaving case-by-case enforcement as the only tool.10Federal Register. Withdrawal of the CARS Rule
Right-to-Repair Lawsuits
A second front concerns who can fix a modern car. As vehicles rely more on proprietary software and encrypted electronics, independent shops and owners have found themselves locked out of routine diagnostic and maintenance functions.
Maine’s Right-to-Repair Law and the Automaker Lawsuit
Maine voters approved a right-to-repair referendum in November 2023, and the law took effect January 6, 2025. It requires automakers to give vehicle owners and independent mechanics access to diagnostic repair data, including through onboard telematics.11Maine Public. Automakers Sue Maine Over Right to Repair
On January 31, 2025, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation sued Maine in federal court in Bangor, arguing compliance was impossible because the state’s attorney general had not yet designated the “independent entity” required to administer the data platform. The Alliance also argued federal preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.11Maine Public. Automakers Sue Maine Over Right to Repair The Maine Legislature passed LD 1228 in June 2025 to remove the independent-entity requirement and give manufacturers an additional 24 months to comply, but the governor did not act before adjournment. Both sides asked the court to pause the case, and the court granted the stay on July 21, 2025, noting the amended law could render the case moot.12Nelson Mullins. Amended Maine Right to Repair Lawsuit in Limbo Until January 2026
The Porsche Repair Monopoly Class Action
In May 2026, Fleet Salvage Systems Inc. filed a class action against Porsche Cars North America in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit alleges Porsche designed its electronic control units so that only authorized dealers can access them, locking independent mechanics out of even routine tasks like clearing an oil indicator code. The complaint claims this gives Porsche “100% market share” in repair services for its vehicles and inflates parts and labor prices.13Courthouse News Service. Class Claims Porsche Monopolizes Repairs on U.S. Vehicles The case invokes the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, and seeks to represent all U.S. owners and entities who paid for repairs at authorized Porsche dealers on vehicles sold since January 2021. Porsche declined to comment, and the case was pending as of mid-2026.14ClassAction.org. Porsche Right to Repair Lawsuit Alleges Automaker Holds Unlawful Monopoly on Repairs and Maintenance
Rivian v. Ohio: The Direct Sales Fight
Electric vehicle maker Rivian has been challenging state laws that prohibit automakers from selling directly to consumers. In Washington state, the company secured legislative permission after threatening a ballot measure.15Wall Street Journal. Rivian Made Car Dealers Back Down in Washington
In Ohio, Rivian went to court. On August 4, 2025, the company sued the Ohio Registrar of Motor Vehicles in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, arguing that the state’s ban on manufacturer dealer licenses is unconstitutional “economic protectionism” that violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Rivian’s complaint pointed to a carve-out in Ohio law that lets Tesla operate up to three dealerships while barring other manufacturers from doing the same.16Gongwer. Rivian, LLC v. Norman, Complaint Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 29, 2026, with responses being briefed in mid-June.17PACER Monitor. Rivian, LLC v. Norman
Large Pending Settlements Affecting Owners
Toyota Forklift Emissions
Toyota agreed to pay $299.5 million to resolve claims it manipulated emissions testing and fabricated reports for its industrial forklift engines. The class covers roughly 272,422 owners and lessees of Toyota gas and diesel forklifts manufactured between 2007 and 2021. Individual payouts are estimated at $1,400 to $2,800 per vehicle, plus an additional service plan valued between $83.7 million and $189.3 million. A final approval hearing was scheduled for July 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.18Courthouse News Service. $299.5 Million Toyota Forklift Emissions Settlement Moves Forward
Auto Parts Price-Fixing MDL
The long-running multidistrict litigation In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich., No. 2:12-md-02311), which grew out of a U.S. Justice Department probe in 2012, has produced $1.2 billion in settlements from defendants including Denso, Hitachi Automotive, and Mitsubishi Electric. In July 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Sean Cox rejected plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for $94 million in additional attorney fees, calling it “excessive” given the firms had already collected over $269 million. The judge ordered the lawyers to refile later in the claims process for a reduced amount.19Reuters. U.S. Judge Rejects Lawyers’ $94 Million Fee Bid in Auto Parts Pricing Case