On October 5, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission dismissed its complaint against Asbury Automotive Group and three of its Texas dealerships, ending more than two years of legal proceedings.
The FTC claimed that David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda of Frisco, and David McDavid Honda of Irving used a practice known as “payment packing” to conceal thousands of dollars in unwanted extras within customers’ vehicle financing agreements.
Employees allegedly quoted higher monthly payments than necessary, then used the difference to cover optional products customers had not knowingly agreed to purchase.
The FTC brought its case in August 2024, and the dispute eventually shifted from the dealerships’ sales practices to a legal challenge to the agency’s administrative proceedings, which ultimately played a central role in the case’s dismissal.
Hidden Car Payments
Embedded media follows; please allow a moment to load.
The FTC’s announcement outlined how payment packaging can lead customers to pay more than they expected for their vehicles.
The complaint detailed charges for extended warranties, protective coatings, and other add-ons. One Ford customer reported being charged $1,200 for guaranteed asset protection, $1,024 for a protective coating, and $584 for a key replacement service.
Additionally, the FTC claimed that some customers were shown electronic documents with only signature fields, not complete contracts. Others said dealership employees told them they needed optional products to complete their purchases.
The dealerships were also accused of charging Black and Latino customers more for certain add-ons than non-Latino White customers.
FTC Drops Complaint
Asbury Automotive rejected the FTC’s accusations and took the fight to federal court, challenging the constitutionality of the agency’s administrative proceedings. The dispute reached an appeal, delaying consideration of the agency’s underlying claims.
In July 2025, the FTC revised its complaint, dropping one of the discriminatory-financing claims while keeping other accusations against the dealerships.
As Asbury’s legal challenge continued, the FTC faced the prospect of spending several more years fighting the case. The agency eventually decided it was no longer worth the time and resources needed to pursue it.
In its October 5 dismissal order, the FTC explained that the ongoing court battle had made it difficult to move forward with the complaint.
The case closed without financial penalties or a ruling on whether Asbury Automotive or its dealerships had violated the law.