FTC, Maryland AG Secure $75M Refunds, $3.1M Penalty Against Lindsay Auto

Tags:

• Consumer Protection
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
• Cars
• deceptive/misleading conduct
• Automobiles
• Advertising and Marketing
• Advertising and Marketing Basics
• Credit and Finance
• Credit and Loans 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.

Consumers who were charged a total of more than $75 million between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025, may be eligible for redress. In addition, Lindsay will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General’s office. 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.

“Lindsay Auto misled consumers by advertising false low car prices and then adding mandatory fees and other charges during the car buying process,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The Trump-Vance FTC is focused on ensuring that auto dealers competitors’ are transparently competing on price.”

“We filed this lawsuit because Lindsay dealerships misled Maryland car buyers into overpaying for their vehicles. This settlement puts money back in Marylanders’ pockets and puts a stop to these predatory practices,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. “Our office is committed to ensuring that every Maryland consumer who does business with a car dealership is treated fairly.”

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. The complaint named three Lindsay dealerships and their management company, along with the company’s part-owner and president Michael Lindsay, COO John Smallwood and the dealerships’ former general manager, Paul Smyth, as defendants.

According to the complaint, Lindsay touted deceptively low prices and then charged the vast majority of consumers hundreds or thousands of dollars more once they arrived at the dealership. Lindsay often claimed consumers could not get the advertised prices because they did not qualify for a litany of rebates included in the advertised price.

The complaint also alleged Lindsay deceptively told consumers they had to finance through the dealership to get the advertised price instead of the financing the consumers already had, including military consumers who had financing from their military branch’s credit union.

Further, the agencies alleged Lindsay charged consumers for add-ons like extra service plans, tire and rim protection, and “guaranteed asset protection” that consumers did not want or agree to buy. According to the complaint, these additional charges often added hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the purchase.

To address the deceptive conduct alleged in the complaint, the proposed order prohibits specific misrepresentations in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, financing, leasing, or selling motor vehicles, including misrepresentations about whether vehicles are available at the advertised prices, and whether any type or source of financing is required, including to buy a vehicle or to get a particular price or other terms.

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.

Under the order, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office will be sending notices to consumers who may be eligible for redress. Consumers can confirm their eligibility by answering a handful of questions in the notices and returning them to the refund claims administrator.

The Commission vote approving filing of the proposed order was 2-0. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson joined by Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a separate statement. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Lindsay Chevrolet, L.L.C., which does business as Lindsay Chevrolet of Woodbridge; Lindsay Ford LLC, which does business as Lindsay Ford of Wheaton; Lindsay Motors, LLC, which does business as Lindsay Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram; and Lindsay Management Company, as well as the individual defendants Lindsay, Smallwood, and Smyth.

NOTE: Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The staff attorney contact on this matter is Evan Zullow in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. FTC appreciates the assistance of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for its partnership in this matter.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Contact Information

Media Contact

Mitchell J. Katz Office of Public Affairs 202-257-3814

Related Cases

Lindsay Chevrolet, et al, FTC and State of Maryland v

Related actions

Concurring Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Mark R. Meador Regarding Lindsay Automotive Group

Topics

Protecting Consumers The Auto Marketplace

Return to top