Dealer junk-fees class-action defense — 2026 playbook

Why these cases are winning

Three conditions collided in 2025–2026 to create the current junk-fees litigation wave:

1. Public narrative. “Junk fees” became a political phrase. Customers now arrive at dealerships primed to suspect hidden charges, and juries arrive in the box the same way.
2. Regulatory framing. The FTC’s CARS rulemaking and its ultimate vacatur left a trail of agency findings — bait-and-switch, drip pricing, junk add-ons — that plaintiffs’ lawyers cite as persuasive authority even though the rule itself is gone.
3. Documentation asymmetry. Many dealerships still cannot produce a signed, itemized, timestamped fee acknowledgement for a randomly selected deal from 18 months ago. Every one of those is an evidentiary hole a plaintiff’s lawyer can walk through.

The cases to know

• Lindsay Automotive Group (MD/VA). FTC + Maryland AG enforcement action under FTC Act Section 5; potential exposure reported at ~$75M. Theory: deceptive advertising and unauthorized add-on charges.
• Indiana doc-prep fee class actions. A coordinated set of lawsuits against Indianapolis-area dealers alleging document preparation fees violated state law; settled for $13.5M.
• Stellantis destination fee class action. Alleged duplicative charging of destination fees by dealerships on Stellantis vehicles.
• FTC “junk fees” warning-letter sweep (2025). ~100 retailers across industries, including auto, flagged for presumptively illegal fee practices.

The evidence-first defense

Every one of these cases turns on documentation. A dealership that can produce, for every deal, a clean packet of:

• The advertised price the customer saw (with screenshots or stored versions of the web price).
• The signed itemized fee acknowledgement, separate from the final contract.
• The verified customer identity linked to the signer.
• The timestamp and device metadata for each signed document.
• A retention record long enough to cover state statute-of-limitations windows.

...wins on summary judgment, or settles for nuisance value. A dealership that cannot produce the packet settles for millions. The asymmetry is that stark.

The six-step playbook

1. Audit a random 30 deals from 18 months ago. For each, produce: advertised price, signed fee acknowledgement, ID verification record, timestamps. Any gap is the template for the next class action against you.
2. Move the itemized fee acknowledgement out of F&I. The fee gets consented to at the sales desk, on a dedicated page, with the customer physically (or digitally) signing each line.
3. Verify the customer up front. A signed acknowledgement by “John Smith” is weaker than one by a verified John Smith whose driver license was parsed and cross-checked before signing.
4. Retain with a fixed policy across rooftops. Inconsistent retention across stores is itself a plaintiffs’ exhibit. Pick 5–7 years and apply it uniformly.
5. Train, document, and re-train. Staff training records are discoverable. A dated training record on fee disclosure is far better than “our practice has always been.”
6. Price your advertising honestly. The cheapest defense is no case. If the ad price includes the doc fee, destination, and dealer adds, no plaintiff can build a bait-and-switch theory.

Where Test Drive Pro fits

Test Drive Pro handles the first half of the evidence chain: verified customer identity, signed test drive agreement, TCPA consent, timestamped drive, and an archived PDF for every drive. Dealerships using Test Drive Pro can add an itemized fee acknowledgement to the signing flow so the entire pre-F&I consent packet lives in one place, with retention set per rooftop. See doc fee disclosure & consent for the narrow operational playbook on fees specifically.

This page summarizes publicly reported enforcement actions and settlements as of April 2026. It is general information, not legal advice. Work with your counsel to evaluate specific exposures at your dealership.