The state of Alaska and Swickard Auto Group have agreed to a $1 million settlement over consumer protection violations, though the dealer group admits no wrongdoing per the agreement.
Swickard will pay $800,000, in four installments of $200,000, over four years. The remaining $200,000 is suspended, payable only if Swickard commits further violations within three years.
The details: Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox announced the settlement one day after the 10-page consent decree was filed on March 23 in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska Third Judicial District at Anchorage.
"Car dealers don't get to advertise one price and charge another—or advertise cars that aren't really there," Cox said in the press release. “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.”
Despite the settlement: Swickard Auto said the attorney general’s announcement “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,” a Swickard spokesperson wrote to CDG News in an email.
Swickard said it “disagrees with the claim that customers couldn’t buy vehicles at advertised prices.”
“…The State hasn’t proven to us that this occurred, despite a three-year process and thousands of records evaluated,” Swickard wrote. “During COVID, vehicles were often pre-sold due to shortages, so the facts don’t support that narrative. And when they point to Facebook or social media posts, those formats don’t allow for every detail of a transaction to be included.”
Swickard also said the bulk of the case stems from an outdated form used to collect used-car history from consumers, one that isn’t used in any other state. The group prefers to use services such as Carfax reports.
The spokesperson wrote: “We believe customers are better served by the same gold-standard disclosures used across the country, rather than an outdated paper form that depends solely on the memory and information provided by individuals who are trying to trade in their vehicles…”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 original lawsuit filed in August 2023 sought an injunction to prevent Swickard from using deceptive practices and asked for a $25,000 fee for every alleged violation of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
Before settling, the court granted two partial summary judgments against Swickard: In July 2025, it found 387 undisputed violations against Swickard Mercedes, and in November 2025, it found 382 violations against Swickard's Porsche/Audi/Volkswagen dealership, all solely on the used-car documentation issue.
If penalized at $25,000 per violation, those two rulings and 769 violations alone represented potential exposure of more than $19 million.
For context: Complaints from three consumers, including an investigator with the state’s Dept. of Law buying a personal vehicle, triggered the undercover investigation by the department’s Consumer Protection Unit, according to the August 2023 filing.
Eight employees and one additional consumer also signed affidavits describing Swickard's conduct, the Dept. of Law wrote to CDG News in an email.
Included on the list of allegations in the court documents:
An Audi A4 listed at $36,295 that ballooned to $49,000 at Audi Anchorage, padded with an undisclosed "protection package" and extended warranty.
A state investigator shopping for a personal vehicle visited Swickard Volkswagen of Anchorage twice and found advertised vehicles that either didn't exist on the lot or weren't available at the listed price.
On his second visit, a salesperson told the investigator the e-commerce team "might be more concerned with driving foot traffic onto the lot than with honesty."
The group said the state’s filing mischaracterized the interaction involving the state investigator.
What they’re saying: “We find it troubling that the State highlights an interaction involving its own investigator, who sought to purchase a vehicle for their own personal use at a price well below market value,” a Swickard spokesperson wrote in an email. “When the dealership appropriately declined, that interaction became part of the basis for opening an investigation. That is neither independent nor a fair standard.”
The law department confirmed the settlement proceeds will go to the state's general fund.
But Swickard Auto wanted the funds to go to consumers.
“We offered to reimburse any customers who felt impacted by these issues,” Swickard wrote. “However, we are not aware of any such circumstances, and the State chose to retain all of the settlement funds rather than direct them to any consumers,” the group wrote.
“We advocated for that outcome… If this were truly about consumers, the outcome would have prioritized consumers.”
The group also said it 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,” the group wrote.
Worth noting: Alaska also recently settled a lawsuit against Lithia Motors, Inc., over similar allegations, for $300,000.
That press release contained instructions for consumers to get restitution checks.
"There is no excuse for a dealership in Alaska to charge its customers dealer fees that aren’t included in its advertised prices," Cox said in the release. "Not only is this explicitly illegal under Alaska law, but it is also fundamentally deceptive to advertise one price online and then charge a higher one at the dealership.”
“That said, Lithia deserves credit: when our Consumer Protection Unit brought their concerns to their attention, Lithia took ownership of its mistakes, assisted in disclosing the extent of the problem, and worked cooperatively with our Consumer Protection Unit to establish a fair resolution."
In this case: The Alaska settlements land just weeks after the Federal Trade Commission announced it sent 97 dealership groups warning letters about similar alleged violations.
And while Swickard Auto Group did not receive one, the case reflects a growing tension between current state-level enforcement and dealership operations.
A quick word from our partner
OPENLANE was once again voted the most preferred digital wholesale marketplace by dealers.
They’ve been busy using the power of people and AI to build a transparent experience.
OPENLANE Intelligence guides smarter condition reports, featuring exterior damage detection, engine audio analysis, and decoded OBD2 codes.
OPENLANE’s pricing guidance gives you the info you need to buy with more confidence.
New dealers to OPENLANE can earn up to $2,500 in fee credits.
