Legal File: VIN Etching Class Action Hits A Roadblock

A Connecticut man who accused a dealership of overcharging for a vehicle identification number, or VIN, etching service may not be able to represent other consumers in his lawsuit after the dealership argued he didn’t know enough about his own purchase to serve as a class representative.

The lawsuit claims the dealership tacked on inflated fees for VIN etching, a theft-deterrent process that marks a car’s windows with its unique vehicle number. It’s a common add-on in auto sales, typically listed on purchase contracts as optional. But many buyers later contend they didn’t understand it or were told it was mandatory.

In filings opposing class certification, attorneys for the dealership said the lead plaintiff failed to demonstrate even a basic grasp of what he was challenging. During his deposition, they said, he couldn’t recall how much he paid, when the etching occurred, or whether it was optional at the time of sale. Those shortcomings, the defense argued, make him an inadequate representative for thousands of other buyers who might join the case.

Alleged Overcharges

The case stems from a string of lawsuits in Connecticut alleging dealerships routinely charged customers as much as $199 or more for VIN etching, even though the service itself costs a fraction of that. Some dealerships are accused of charging more than the rates they filed with the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which regulates the fees.

In one earlier complaint, a dealership in Hartford County was accused of violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by inflating VIN-etching prices and failing to disclose that the service could be declined. Lawyers for consumers say the practice has quietly generated millions in revenue across multiple dealerships statewide.

VIN etching is meant to make a stolen vehicle harder to sell or disguise, and insurance companies sometimes offer small premium discounts to vehicles that have it. However, consumer advocates argue the deterrent benefit is minimal and that dealerships use it primarily as a high-margin profit item added to financing contracts.

This begs the question, however, if as a buyer you don’t like the terms of the deal, why not just walk away OR negotiate the price of the add-on to something you can live with?

The Class Certification Battle

To move forward as a class action, the plaintiff must show that his claims are typical of those of the group and that he can fairly represent all members. The dealership’s attorneys say he fails that test, citing his inability to answer key questions under oath. They contend that if he doesn’t fully understand the details of his own transaction, he cannot effectively protect the interests of hundreds of other buyers.

The plaintiff’s attorneys counter that the case is about deceptive conduct, not his recall of specific dollar amounts, and that the dealership’s alleged misrepresentations were uniform across all transactions. They argue that refusing class certification on those grounds would reward businesses that confuse consumers in the first place.

A judge has not yet ruled on whether the case can proceed as a class action. Without certification, the lawsuit would be limited to the plaintiff’s individual claim, which could drastically reduce potential exposure for the dealership and weaken similar cases pending in Connecticut courts.

Broader Implications

VIN-etching fees have been a recurring source of consumer complaints nationwide, especially as vehicle prices and financing terms grow more complex. Regulators in several states have warned dealers that the service must be optional and clearly disclosed. The Federal Trade Commission has also cited VIN-etching add-ons in recent enforcement actions targeting deceptive dealer practices.

Consumer attorneys say such cases highlight how even small-dollar add-ons can become systemic overcharges when applied across thousands of transactions. Dealership groups maintain the fees are legitimate, properly disclosed, and tied to genuine security services offered to customers who choose them.

The Connecticut case will test how much a plaintiff’s personal knowledge matters in a claim that centers on uniform dealer conduct. If the court sides with the dealership, it could set a precedent making it harder for consumers to bring similar class actions over small fees and optional products. If it goes the other way, it could open the door for broader scrutiny of dealership add-ons that customers rarely question until long after the sale.

Either way, the ruling will serve as another reminder that the fine print — and a customer’s understanding of it — often determines who wins when a few hundred dollars at the dealership turns into a statewide legal battle.