- within Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring, Strategy and Environment topic(s)
The Federal Trade Commission and state of Connecticut recently secured a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC and its owners and management over allegations that the business was collecting fees without consumer authorization, including double charging for “certified pre-owned vehicles.”
The company did business as Manchester City Nissan. The Stipulated Order for a Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment and Other Relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The FTC and the state of Connecticut sued the company in January 2024.
“[The] settlement with Manchester City Nissan marks another critical step in the Commission’s goal of advancing price transparency in the auto marketplace,” Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said. “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 and Connecticut contended that the dealership’s own data showed that customers often were charged thousands of dollars in unlawful fees. Charges such as total loss protection were frequently inserted into financing agreements without the consumers’ knowledge or consent.
“Manchester City Nissan systematically ripped-off Connecticut customers through needless, unauthorized junk fees” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said. He added, “Car costs are through the roof right now, and Connecticut families deserve honest and fair prices.”
The proposed order, which is pending court approval, requires 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.” As required under other settlements, and as would have been required under the CARS Rule, had it gone into effect, the agreement also requires the defendants to conspicuously disclose as the most prominently displayed item the maximum price a consumer must pay for a vehicle, excluding only government charges and to secure informed consent from consumers for all charges.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]