Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Car dealer agrees to $4 million settlement with FTC and Connecticut, (Aug 20, 2026)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The dealer was alleged to have been deceptively collecting fees from buyers without authorization.

The FTC announced that it has secured, along with the state of Connecticut, a $4 million proposed stipulated settlement with a Manchester, Connecticut, auto dealer and its owners and managers resolving allegations the business was, among other things, double-charging for “certified pre-owned” vehicles and collecting other fees without consumer authorization (FTC v. Chase Nissan LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00012-VDO (D. Conn. Aug. 19, 2026)).

“Today’s settlement with Manchester City Nissan marks another critical step in the Commission’s goal of advancing price transparency in the auto marketplace,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential for protecting consumers from deception and for preserving the integrity of competitive markets. When businesses compete openly and honestly, consumers benefit from better prices, higher quality and greater trust. The FTC remains committed to enforcing these principles across the marketplace, ensuring that every consumer can shop with confidence and every business can compete on a fair and equal footing.”

The complaint allegations. The FTC announced January 4, 2024 that it, along with the State of Connecticut, has taken legal action against Manchester, Connecticut automobile dealership Chase Nissan LLC—which also does business as Manchester City Nissan—along with several key executives and employees for systematically deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-on products, and government fees. According to a 17-count complaint filed federal district court in Hartford, the dealership also regularly charges consumers up to thousands of dollars in junk fees for certification, add-ons, and fees without their consent. Individual defendants included the dealer’s principals, general manager, finance manager, and two sales managers.

The complaint charged that the defendants’ conduct violates numerous provisions of the FTC Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and Connecticut state law.

The dealership and its employees regularly “double-charged” for “certified pre-owned” vehicles, tacking on a certification charge for the vehicles with consumers arrive to looking to buy them, according to the filing. “Certified pre-owned” is a term referring to a used vehicle that has been inspected and repaired to the manufacturer’s specifications. Nissan’s rules bar dealers for charging a fee for certification beyond the price of the car. The complaint cited as an example an occasion when a consumer came in looking to buy a certified pre-owned car that was advertised for $15,700, only for the dealer to add a $5,295.65 junk inspection fee for a car it had already inspected. Further, the dealer often charged consumers extra for an inspection or repair that had already occurred, but then failed to report the vehicle’s sale to Nissan, leaving consumers without the additional warranty promised in its advertising.

The dealer and its employees frequently charged buyers for bogus add-ons that they did not agree to pay, such as General Asset Protection (GAP), service contracts, maintenance contracts, and Total Loss Protection (TLP). The government’s filing described one instance in which a consumer negotiated a price of $20,500 for a vehicle, but then found that the dealer had tacked more than $7,000 in add-ons to the amount she financed for it.

Additionally, the defendants regularly deceived consumers during the sales process about government-imposed taxes and fees by claiming that junk fees they added “are required by the government” or deceptively inflating the actual fees to register the car, then keeping the difference as profit. According to the complaint, Manchester City Nissan told one consumer, for example, that Connecticut registration and other state fees were $345, when in fact the fees added up to only $208.20.

Proposed settlement. The proposed settlement will require the defendants to pay $4 million to be used for consumer redress and refrain from misrepresentations, including whether vehicles are certified or include a limited manufacturer warranty. Specifically, they must not misrepresent:

• the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle;

• the availability of vehicles at an advertised price;

• whether vehicles are certified or include a limited manufacturer warranty;

• whether charges, fees, taxes, products, or services are optional or required;

• whether charges, products, or services are authorized by consumers;

• the amount of any charge, fee, or tax; and

• any other fact material to consumers concerning any good or service, such as: any restrictions, limitations, or conditions; or any aspect of the benefits, performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics.

To foster price transparency, the agreement also requires the defendants to clearly and conspicuously disclose as the most prominently displayed item the maximum total price a consumer must pay for a vehicle, excluding only required government charges. The settlement also requires defendants to secure express, informed consent from consumers for all charges.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00012-VDO.

Judge: Oliver, V.

Attorneys: Samuel Jacobson for the FTC. James T. Shearin (Pullman & Comley) for Chase Nissan LLC.

Companies: Chase Nissan LLC

News: ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews ConnecticutNews