Major automotive settlements finalized between 2024 and 2026 have delivered more than $1.5 billion in penalties and consumer refunds, targeting four distinct kinds of misconduct: deceptive dealer pricing and hidden add-ons, connected-vehicle data sold without consent, decades of parts price-fixing, and manipulated emissions testing. Several of these settlements are actively paying consumers right now, and the eligibility rules differ sharply from case to case.
Dealer Pricing Fraud: Where the Refunds Are
The Federal Trade Commission has made deceptive dealer pricing its top automotive enforcement priority, with three major actions in rapid succession. All three share the same pattern: low advertised prices, then surprise fees and unwanted add-ons at signing.
Lindsay Automotive Group — Over $75 Million in Refunds
The largest consumer refund pool comes from an April 2026 settlement between the FTC, the Maryland Attorney General, and Lindsay Automotive Group. Consumers charged more than $75 million in deceptive fees between April 2020 and December 2025 may be eligible for full refunds.1Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Maryland Attorney General Secure Full Refunds, Additional Penalties Against Lindsay Auto Group
Three dealerships are covered: Lindsay Ford of Wheaton, Lindsay Chevrolet of Woodbridge, and Lindsay Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram of Manassas. Regulators alleged the stores advertised falsely low prices and then piled on hundreds or thousands of dollars in charges once customers arrived. Some buyers were told the advertised price required dealer financing, and military service members were allegedly pressured to abandon their own credit union loans. Charges for service plans, tire-and-rim protection, and guaranteed asset protection were added without consent.2Maryland Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Brown Announces Settlement with Lindsay Dealerships
The Maryland Attorney General’s office is sending notices directly to potentially eligible consumers. If you bought from one of these dealerships in that window, watch for that notice and respond to the claims administrator; refunds cover the difference between advertised and actual prices paid. Lindsay also owes a $3.1 million civil penalty to Maryland.1Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Maryland Attorney General Secure Full Refunds, Additional Penalties Against Lindsay Auto Group
Leader Automotive Group — $20 Million Settlement
In December 2024, the FTC and Illinois Attorney General secured a $20 million settlement with Leader Automotive Group and its Canadian parent, AutoCanada, covering roughly 20 franchised dealerships across Illinois. At the time, it was the largest monetary judgment the FTC had ever secured against an auto dealer.3Federal Trade Commission. FTC, Illinois Take Action Against Leader Automotive Group
The complaint alleged that approximately 80 percent of customers were charged for add-on products they never agreed to buy, including Xzilon protective coatings and LoJack theft-tracking devices sometimes falsely described as pre-installed and mandatory. In some cases, add-ons were never actually installed. One example cited by the FTC: a 2013 Nissan Juke with $5,943 in extras loaded onto an $11,000 sticker price.4Federal Trade Commission. Leader Automotive Group Complaint The dealerships also allegedly sold Canadian-market vehicles without disclosing that importing them voided the manufacturer’s warranty, and paid employees up to $25 for fake five-star Google reviews.
The settlement requires Leader and AutoCanada to refund harmed consumers and to clearly disclose the true “offering price,” excluding only government-required charges like taxes and registration.5Federal Trade Commission. Leader Automotive Group Case Page
Asbury Automotive Group — Case Still Pending
The FTC’s August 2024 administrative complaint against Asbury Automotive Group targets David McDavid-branded Honda and Ford dealerships in Texas. Regulators allege “payment packing” — inflating monthly payments to bury hidden add-on charges — and separately allege the dealerships targeted Black and Latino consumers with higher-priced and more frequent add-ons.6Federal Trade Commission. Asbury Automotive Group Case Page A federal judge declined to block the lawsuit in August 2025, and the case remains active with no settlement or refund program yet.7Reuters. US Judge Won’t Block FTC Consumer Lawsuit Against Asbury Automotive
The Broader Warning to Dealers
In March 2026, the FTC sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups nationwide. The letters made three points: advertised prices must include all mandatory fees, prices cannot be conditioned on dealer-specific financing, and advertising unavailable vehicles is illegal. The agency cited Lindsay, Leader, and Asbury as examples of what non-compliant dealers face.8Federal Trade Commission. FTC Warns 97 Auto Dealership Groups About Deceptive Pricing
Connected-Car Data Sold Without Consent
A second enforcement front has opened around driving data collected by modern connected vehicles. The largest action involves General Motors.
General Motors and OnStar — $12.75 Million and Two Regulatory Orders
On May 8, 2026, the California Attorney General, several county district attorneys, and the California Privacy Protection Agency announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors — the largest penalty to date under the California Consumer Privacy Act.9California Office of the Attorney General. When It Comes to Data Privacy, Consumers Must Be in the Driver’s Seat
California alleged that from 2020 to 2024, GM collected driving behavior and precise geolocation data through OnStar and sold it to data brokers Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions for use in driver-rating products marketed to insurers. GM’s own privacy policy stated it did not sell driving or location data. Regulators said GM generated roughly $20 million from these sales.10CalMatters. GM Record California Penalty OnStar Data
Under the California settlement, GM faces a five-year ban on selling driving data to consumer reporting agencies, must delete retained driving data within 180 days absent consumer consent, and must ask Verisk and LexisNexis to delete previously sold data.9California Office of the Attorney General. When It Comes to Data Privacy, Consumers Must Be in the Driver’s Seat
A separate FTC order, finalized in January 2026, imposes a five-year ban on sharing geolocation and driving behavior data with consumer reporting agencies and a 20-year requirement that GM obtain affirmative express consent before collecting or sharing connected-vehicle data. The order also requires GM to give U.S. consumers ways to access, delete, and opt out of data collection.11Federal Trade Commission. FTC Finalizes Order Settling Allegations GM OnStar Collected, Sold Geolocation Data Without Consumers’ Consent Neither action creates a direct consumer refund pool; the remedies are behavioral and prospective.
Honda and Ford — California Privacy Fines
California has also targeted Honda and Ford for making privacy opt-outs unnecessarily difficult. In March 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency fined American Honda Motor Co. $632,500 for requiring excessive personal information to process opt-out requests, applying unlawful verification standards, and failing to provide equal-click options for accepting or rejecting cookies.12California Privacy Protection Agency. CPPA Enforcement Action Against American Honda Motor Co.
In March 2026, the same agency reached a $375,703 settlement with Ford Motor Company, which had required consumers to verify their email addresses before processing opt-out requests. Consumers who didn’t complete verification had their requests ignored. Ford agreed to simplify the opt-out process and audit its website tracking for compliance with signals like Global Privacy Control.13California Privacy Protection Agency. Ford to Change Practices, Pay Fine for Adding Unnecessary Friction to Opt-Out Process
Auto Parts Price-Fixing — $1.2 Billion
The largest automotive settlement pool by total dollar value comes from In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan since 2011. Settlements with dozens of manufacturers, including Denso, Hitachi Automotive, Mitsubishi Electric, and Yazaki, have totaled approximately $1.2 billion across five rounds — described by plaintiffs’ counsel as the largest indirect-purchaser antitrust recovery in U.S. history.14Susman Godfrey. Settlements in Landmark Auto Parts Litigation Surpass $1 Billion All settling companies denied wrongdoing.
The class covers consumers and businesses who purchased or leased new vehicles at prices allegedly inflated by 41 coordinated bid-rigging and price-fixing schemes. If you did not already file a claim, it is too late: the deadline for the final round passed in January 2023. Pro-rata distribution payments went out to approved claimants in September 2025, with a $100 minimum payment threshold. Claims are administered by Epiq.15Auto Parts Settlements. Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation Homepage
Toyota Forklift Emissions — $299.5 Million
A federal judge in the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval to a $299.5 million settlement resolving allegations that Toyota and its subsidiaries manipulated emissions testing on gasoline and diesel forklifts. The class covers approximately 272,422 forklift owners and lessees, with individual payments estimated between $1,400 and $2,800 per vehicle. An additional service plan component is valued between $83.7 million and $189.3 million.16Courthouse News Service. $299.5 Million Toyota Forklift Emissions Settlement Moves Forward A final approval hearing was scheduled for July 9, 2026, in San Francisco. Note the scope: this covers forklifts, not passenger vehicles.
Driven Brands — $25 Million Investor Settlement
Investors in Driven Brands Holdings — the parent of glass repair and car wash brands — secured a $25 million settlement in Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc. Investors alleged that Driven and its executives overstated the integration of glass repair acquisitions and the performance of its car wash business. The class covers shareholders who acquired Driven stock between October 27, 2021, and August 1, 2023.17Bloomberg Law. Driven Brands $25 Million Investor Accord Gets Court Approval Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina entered final judgment on June 9, 2026. Claim forms are due July 6, 2026.18Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. Driven Brands Holdings Case Page
What This Means for Car Buyers Going Forward
The FTC’s proposed nationwide CARS Rule, which would have required total-price disclosure and add-on consent at every dealership in the country, was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January 2025 on procedural grounds. The FTC did not appeal, and the rule is considered permanently dead.8Federal Trade Commission. FTC Warns 97 Auto Dealership Groups About Deceptive Pricing
States have started filling the gap. Massachusetts implemented a “Junk Fee Rule” that took effect in September 2025, requiring total-price disclosure at the point of initial price presentation for new car sales. California’s Senate Bill 766, the California Combating Auto Retail Scams Act, has a proposed effective date of October 1, 2026, and mirrors much of the defunct federal rule.19Nelson Mullins. States Pick Up Regulating New Car Sales Practices Following FTC Loss on CARS Rule Elsewhere, protection comes case by case: the FTC has signaled it will keep bringing individual enforcement actions under existing FTC Act authority, as it did with Leader, Lindsay, and Asbury.
If you bought from one of the named dealerships in the relevant window, watch your mail for a claims notice and respond promptly. If you own a GM vehicle with OnStar, the FTC order gives you the right to request access to, deletion of, and opt-out from your connected-vehicle data. And if you’re shopping now, the enforcement pattern points to the questions worth asking before you sign: what is the total price including every mandatory fee, and what add-ons are on this contract that I did not ask for.