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

Credit Glory LLC

The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.

FTC

Federal Trade Commission

The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.

FTC

Hims & Hers

The FTC, along with Utah and California, filed a complaint against Hims & Hers alleging the telehealth provider shared consumers' sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms without consent, and deceived consumers about billing and cancellation practices. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.

FTC

Elite Events and Tickets LLC

$300K

The FTC alleged that Elite Events and Tickets LLC, doing business as Smart Scalpers, violated the Better Online Ticket Sales Act by circumventing security measures to bypass ticket purchase limits for over 2,400 events, reselling tickets at a profit. The proposed order requires payment of $300,000 (with a total penalty of $10.7 million partially suspended) and permanently prohibits the company and its owners from engaging in such circumvention tactics.

FTC

Dennise Merdjanian

$45.9M

The FTC permanently banned Dennise Merdjanian from the debt relief industry and telemarketing after she and Superior Servicing LLC allegedly ran a student loan forgiveness scam that took more than $45.9 million from consumers. The proposed stipulated order imposes a partially suspended monetary judgment and resolves the FTC's litigation against the remaining defendants.

FTC

Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, and Hanoch Goldstein

$16.5M

The FTC charged the founders of Celsius Network with deceiving consumers by falsely promising that cryptocurrency deposits were safe and always available. The founders agreed to pay $16.5 million and are banned from marketing or selling products that can be used to deposit or withdraw assets, among other restrictions.