The Federal Trade Commission and the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office announced a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC, doing business as Manchester City Nissan, along with the dealership’s owners and managers, on August 19, 2026. The stipulated order resolves a lawsuit the FTC and Connecticut filed in January 2024. The order was signed by the parties and approved by a 2-0 Commission vote, but still requires a federal judge’s signature before it takes legal effect.

Background

The complaint centered on the Manchester, Connecticut dealership’s certified pre-owned pricing and its add-on charges. According to the FTC and the state, the dealership advertised specific vehicles, including certified pre-owned models, at specific prices, but then charged buyers hundreds or thousands of dollars beyond the advertised price for services like inspection, reconditioning, and certification, even though those services were supposed to already be included in a “certified” vehicle. In one example cited in the complaint, the dealer advertised a certified 2017 Nissan Rogue for $15,700, then charged the buyer more than $5,000 for an inspection fee. 

The complaint also alleged the dealer frequently failed to actually certify vehicles it advertised as certified, meaning buyers did not get the manufacturer warranty that is supposed to come with that status. Separately, the FTC and Connecticut alleged the dealership added charges for products like GAP insurance, vehicle service contracts, and total loss protection to financing paperwork without getting customers’ knowledge or consent, in some instances despite customers explicitly declining those products. The complaint also alleged the dealership overstated state registration fees and, in some transactions, double-charged sales tax and a documentation fee, once during negotiation and again in the final contract.

The defendants neither admitted nor denied the allegations as part of the settlement.

Settlement Terms

The order permanently bars the defendants from misrepresenting the cost or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, whether a vehicle is certified or includes a manufacturer warranty, whether any charge is optional or required, and whether a charge was actually authorized by the customer.

The order also sets an affirmative disclosure requirement: any time the dealer communicates an amount a consumer might pay to purchase, finance, or lease a vehicle, it must clearly and conspicuously state the Total Price, meaning the maximum a buyer must pay including all mandatory fees, as the most prominent figure in that communication. The order specifically addresses document processing fees on this point: regardless of what the dealer calls the fee, whether a “conveyance fee,” “document fee,” or another term, that fee must be included in the Total Price. In other words, the dealer can’t advertise a lower price and then add a document fee on top of it later; the fee has to be folded into the same all-in number that has to be the most prominently displayed figure.

On the add-on side, the dealer can no longer charge a customer for any product or service without first getting the customer’s “express, informed consent,” a defined term in the order that requires an affirmative act by the consumer after clear disclosure of the product, its full cost, and whether it’s optional.

Why This Matters

This case runs on the same theory as several other recent auto dealer settlements nationally: mismatches between an advertised price and what a customer actually pays, and charges added to financing paperwork without clear, itemized consent. The order’s core requirements, disclosing total price prominently and getting express informed consent for every add-on, track closely with what FTC guidance and many state advertising rules already expect.