State of Connecticut and Federal Trade Commission, sued Chase Nissan LLC, d/b/a Manchester City Nissan (“MCN) and multiple individuals, alleging that MCN, along with others, acted together to defraud thousands of consumers. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants charged consumers for additional products or services (“addons”) that consumers never agreed to purchase. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants effected unauthorized charges in multiple ways, including add-ons inserted into unaware consumers’ closing documents or charging consumers for add-ons that MCN told consumers were free.
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jessica Broome, conducted a customer experience survey about add-on products or services offered at MCN (the “Broome Survey”).
The Defendants argued that the methodology Broome applied to her survey was significantly flawed, and therefore, the results and conclusions were insufficiently probative.
Survey Research Expert Witness
Dr. Jessica Broome received a PhD in Survey Methodology from the University of Michigan, an MS in Applied Social Research from Hunter College of the City University of New York, and a BA in Sociology from Connecticut College. She has worked as a primary researcher for the past 24 years, designing and conducting quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus groups, ethnographies, interviews) research for clients in a range of sectors.
Discussion by the Court
Specifically, the Defendants argued that (1) the Broome Survey included misleading questions; (2) the Survey disclosed the FTC as the sponsor and the purpose of the survey; (3) that respondents were able to change their previous answers; and (4) that the population selected was underinclusive.
A. Question A1 is Clear and Unambiguous
Question A1 stated: “Did you agree to pay extra for any of the following add-on products or services when purchasing this vehicle?” Respondents were then presented with a list of eleven possible add-on products and services and, for each, asked to answer “Yes,” “No,” or “Not Sure.”
Based upon the responses received to Question A1, Broome concluded that “Manchester City Nissan charged the vast majority of customers surveyed (88%) for at least one add-on that they did not agree to pay extra for or led customers to believe that the add-on was required rather than optional.”
Broome further concluded, based upon respondents’ answers to Question A1, that “Manchester City charged a substantial percentage of customers surveyed (42%) for multiple add-ons that they did not agree to pay extra for or led customers to believe that the add-ons were required rather than optional.”
The Defendants asserted that this is an ambiguous question and unclear about the very thing that the survey was trying to measure: whether consumers paid for an add-on product or service without agreeing to do so.
When an unclear question is included in a survey, it may threaten the validity of the survey by distorting the responses or by error if the respondents do not understand. However, there is no indication that the questions were misleading or that the respondents did not understand the question.
As explained by Broome, her team conducted two rounds of cognitive interviews to check the understanding of the questions. After a pretest respondent completed each survey question online or over the phone, the interviewer posed a series of follow-up questions, called “probes”, aimed at determining whether the survey questions were understood by respondents as intended.
Additionally, small ambiguities in surveys go to the weight of the survey as evidence, not to its admissibility.
B. Disclosure of the FTC as Sponsor is Consistent with Reliable Survey Methodology
Second, the Defendants argued that the survey disclosed the FTC as the sponsor and thus is unreliable. The Defendants asserted that all the individuals who made up Broome’s survey population knew that the FTC sought the information regarding car purchases. The Defendants claimed that identifying the FTC as a sponsor injects potential bias into the survey by suggesting certain preferred responses.
Courts from across the country have repeatedly accepted as reliable consumer surveys that disclose the FTC as a sponsor where the surveyor has taken steps to hide the purpose of the survey. Broome asserted that she took steps to hide the purpose of the survey. The invitation included no references to litigation against MCN and stated that the purpose was to learn about general car purchases over the past five years.
The survey did not focus on MCN but showed a randomized list of four local dealerships. Additionally, the FTC may bring litigation before a consumer survey is published.
C. Backwards Navigation is Consistent with Reliable Survey Methodology
Third, the Defendants argued that the backward navigation allowed consumers to change their answers and thus is unreliable. The
Defendants claimed that later questions could suggest certain conclusions regarding whether the consumer agreed to pay extra for the add-ons. Because the consumers had the ability to navigate backwards on the survey, the responses potentially could be skewed.
The defense, however, presented no evidence that the backward navigation is a design flaw. The defense retained a survey expert to prepare a rebuttal of Broome’s work, yet they did not use their expert’s opinion in their motion. Plaintiffs argued that Broome utilized standardized and approved methodology.
The Court held that Broome’s work is consistent with reliable methodology. Further, issues raised by the Defendant would go to weight rather than admissibility.
D. The Survey Population Selected is Consistent with Reliable Survey Methodology
Fourth, the Defendants argued that the consumer population was underinclusive; thus, the survey is unreliable.
The Defendants asserted that the target population was adults who purchased a vehicle from MCN between January 2019 and December 2023 and were charged for at least one add-on. The defense claimed that Broome pulled potential participants from lists provided to her by the FTC for all add-on transactions at MCN, and this population excludes all customers who purchased a vehicle and did not purchase an add-on. They asserted that this population, by design, intentionally excluded customers who, if included, would have greatly decreased Broome’s numbers.
Broome’s survey was not intended to represent consumers who were not charged for add-ons so there is no reason to include such consumers in the target population. Even if Plaintiffs were to expand the target population as suggested the methodology would find similar results. The Defendants’ argument that Broome should have surveyed all consumers is, therefore, without basis.
The Court held that Broome’s survey is designed with methodology consistent with the Reference Guide on Survey Research and legal precedent regarding FTC surveys. In other words, Broome’s technique used reliable survey methodology.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Jessica Broome.
Key Takeaway
Broome’s survey followed correct methodology and legal best
practices. Sponsorship by a governmental third party may not automatically suggest a certain kind of preferred response. Moreover, courts have repeatedly accepted consumer surveys that disclose the FTC as the sponsor.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Federal Trade Commission V. Chase Nissan LLC |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv12 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Connecticut |
| Order Date: | March 16, 2026 |
Leave a Reply