The Federal Trade Commission spent more than two years trying to get its case against Asbury Automotive Group in front of a judge. On Oct. 5, it gave up. The agency dismissed its administrative complaint against Asbury, three of its North Texas stores, and their former general manager. The order says the public interest no longer justifies continuing the fight. (dismissal order)
The case never reached the merits. Nobody ever ruled on whether the dealers did what the FTC said they did, and that’s the real story.
What the FTC alleged
The complaint, issued in August 2024 on a 5-0 vote, targeted David McDavid Ford Fort Worth, David McDavid Honda of Frisco and David McDavid Honda of Irving. The FTC accused the stores of “payment packing.” In that tactic, a buyer agrees to a monthly payment higher than the car actually requires, and the gap gets filled with add-ons the buyer never asked for. The items included chemical coatings, service contracts, and life and disability insurance. (2024 FTC release)
Related Articles
- Florida Deputies Grappled a Wanted Driver on I-75. His 16 Felonies Don’t Include Fleeing.
- Ford Recalls 565,691 Broncos Over a Wiring Harness That Can Chafe, Arc and Risk a Fire
The agency said customers signed on electronic pads that showed only the signature fields, not the full documents. It also cited a customer survey in which up to 75% of buyers reported being charged for products they hadn’t authorized or were falsely told were mandatory. A discrimination count alleged that one store charged Black buyers $298 more and Latino buyers $214 more, on average, for the same add-ons.
Asbury called the allegations false and unfounded the day they were announced and promised a vigorous defense. (Asbury statement)
How a consumer case turned into a constitutional fight
Asbury didn’t litigate the add-ons. It sued the FTC itself in federal court in North Texas, challenging the agency’s structure and its use of in-house administrative judges. That froze the administrative case, which stayed on hold while the federal court dealt with the constitutional questions. (dismissal order)
Asbury lost the first rounds. In August 2025, the district court denied its request for a preliminary injunction and threw out several of its constitutional claims. Asbury appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and that appeal is still pending. The Commission’s own order acknowledges it was facing what could be years more of federal litigation before it could even begin trying the facts.
The case also shrank along the way. In July 2025, the FTC dropped the discriminatory-financing count under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It cited a 2025 executive order directing agencies to reevaluate cases built on disparate-impact theories. In August 2026, FTC lawyers moved to withdraw the case from adjudication, and Asbury didn’t oppose it. (unopposed motion)
There’s a little history here. Andrew Ferguson voted to bring the complaint in 2024 as a commissioner and filed a concurring statement. He’s now chairman, and the dismissal order lists only two sitting commissioners: Ferguson and Mark Meador.
The real lesson: this was a forum loss
Dealers shouldn’t read this as permission. The FTC didn’t lose on the facts. It lost on venue and time. The in-house administrative route, the agency’s fastest tool, is now vulnerable to constitutional delay tactics, especially in the Fifth Circuit. That’s the same court that struck down the FTC’s dealer-specific CARS Rule in January 2025 on procedural grounds. (Fifth Circuit opinion)
Expect the FTC to bring more of these cases directly in federal district court instead. Its dismissal order points to exactly that playbook. It cites an August 2026 stipulated federal court order against a Connecticut Nissan dealer, along with the agency’s March 2026 warning letters to 97 dealership groups. Those letters told dealers that advertised prices must include every mandatory fee. They also flagged as illegal any prices that depend on dealer financing, require a down payment the ad doesn’t mention, or include rebates most buyers can’t get. (warning letters release)
Related Articles
- Trump’s Red Diesel Order Turns a 24.4-Cent Fuel Tax Into an IOU
- Police Say a Baker Act Patient Left a Hialeah Hospital, Took a Woman’s Nissan and Hit 85 MPH
So the target is still the same: the gap between the price on the windshield and the number on the contract. Only the courtroom has changed.
What this means for buyers
With no merits ruling, buyers get no new legal protection from this case. That means the defenses are still yours to use:
- Negotiate the out-the-door price, not the monthly payment. Payment packing only works when the buyer is watching the monthly number. Get an itemized buyer’s order showing the vehicle price, taxes, government fees and every add-on as a separate line.
- Read the full contract, not just the signature boxes. If a tablet only shows you where to sign, ask for a printed copy of everything before you sign.
- Treat “mandatory” as a claim to verify. Coatings, service contracts and credit insurance are almost never legally required to buy a car. The FTC’s consumer guidance says dealers can’t charge you for add-ons you didn’t agree to.
- Audit the deal after you sign. If an extra shows up that you didn’t authorize, ask the dealer and the lender in writing to cancel it and refund it, and report it at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Images Via: Wikipedia