Experts are greatly encouraging dealers to enhance their used-car inventory by purchasing vehicles from individuals.

Well, a settlement finalized this week in Alaska showed how expensive compliance mistakes can be when dealers leverage that option.

Along with allegations associated with unfair and deceptive advertising practices, Alaska attorney general Stephen Cox announced the settlement of the state’s consumer protection lawsuit against Swickard Anchorage, which operates Chevrolet, Buick and GMC franchises.

The dealer group, however, said the AG’s announcement “does not accurately reflect what occurred,” according to a statement from Swickard Auto Group.

“We chose to resolve this matter without any admission of wrongdoing or finding of unlawful conduct to avoid prolonged and costly litigation,” a Swickard spokesperson said in the statement.

(See full statement below)

Cox, the Alaska AG, recapped that an Anchorage Superior Court found that Swickard purchased used vehicles from individual consumers without obtaining a signed statement describing the vehicle’s condition, including the accident and repair history.

The attorney general explained state law requires dealerships to secure this signed statement from sellers and then provide it to prospective buyers. He said Swickard’s failure to follow this process “deprived consumers of information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions” and violated AS 45.25.465 and AS 45.50.471(b)(43).

Furthermore, Cox said the complaint alleged that Swickard engaged in unfair and deceptive advertising practices, including advertising vehicles that were not actually available for purchase to draw customers to its lot.

The Alaska AG said Swickard also refused to honor advertised prices once consumers arrived, requiring consumers to purchase expensive dealer add-ons that were not disclosed in the online advertisements, such as extra warranties, ceramic coating, dent and ding protection, and door edge guards and cups.

Under this settlement, Swickard will pay a total civil penalty of $800,000, with an additional suspended penalty of $200,000 to be paid if Swickard engages in reckless or persistent violations of consumer protection laws in the next three years.

“Car dealers don’t get to advertise one price and charge another or advertise cars that aren’t really there,” Cox said. “That’s a bait-and-switch, and it’s unlawful. Alaskans already face higher costs than most. This settlement holds Swickard accountable and reinforces that the price you see should be the price you pay.”

This development surfaced after the Federal Trade Commission intensified its interest in dealership advertising.

The FTC said on March 13 that it is sending letters to 97 auto groups nationwide, warning them that the prices they advertise must be the total price — including all mandatory fees — that consumers will be required to pay.

“Consumers should know that Alaska law entitles them to purchase a vehicle at the advertised price,” the Alaska AG office said in the news release. “Dealerships cannot make consumers pay dealer documentation fees or dealer add-ons unless those extra costs were disclosed as part of the advertised price.

“And if consumers are purchasing a used vehicle, the dealership must provide a signed statement from the vehicle’s previous owner that describes the vehicles condition and accident history. Or, if the vehicle was purchased at auction, from another dealer, or from a wholesaler, that fact must be disclosed as well,” officials went on to say.

AG’s announcement ‘does not accurately reflect what occurred,’ dealer group says

A spokesperson of Swickard Auto Group said in a statement shared with Auto Remarketing: “The Attorney General’s announcement today regarding its settlement with our Alaska dealerships does not accurately reflect what occurred. We chose to resolve this matter without any admission of wrongdoing or finding of unlawful conduct to avoid prolonged and costly litigation.

“At its core, this case was a debate over a decades-old Alaska-specific form — a form not required in any other state. Alaska requires dealers to collect vehicle history from the party trading in or selling the vehicle. Our practice was to provide customers with far more comprehensive, modern vehicle history reports from CarFax and Experian. That is not ‘bait and switch.’ We believe customers are better served by the same gold-standard disclosures used across the country, rather than an outdated paper form that depends solely on the memory and information provided by individuals who are trying to trade in their vehicles,” the spokesperson said.

“Today’s consumers shop online, across mobile and digital platforms. Yet instead of modernizing the law to reflect that reality, the State of Alaska continues to pursue enforcement based on outdated technical requirements that do not align with how customers buy vehicles today,” the statement continued. “It is unfortunate that none of the settlement funds are going to customers. We advocated for that outcome, but the State is keeping the funds for themselves. If this were truly about consumers, the outcome would have prioritized consumers.

“We are proud of the hundreds of employees in Alaska and deeply grateful to our customers for their continued trust, loyalty, and support. We never take that trust for granted — it means everything to us. We’ve also remained committed to the community, contributing over $100,000 to organizations across the state,” the spokesperson said.

“Looking ahead, we will continue to invest in clearer, more consistent customer experiences—combining transparent pricing, modern digital tools, and industry-leading disclosures. We remain committed to working constructively with regulators while advocating for fair, modern standards that reflect how consumers actually shop today.”