What Is the CarShield Lawsuit?
The CarShield lawsuit is a pair of federal cases over how CarShield's vehicle service contracts were advertised and honored: a Federal Trade Commission enforcement action that settled for $10 million, and a private consumer class action that has been sent to arbitration. Both cases sit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and neither is a multidistrict litigation.
The FTC case is Federal Trade Commission v. NRRM, LLC and American Auto Shield, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01055. NRRM, LLC does business as CarShield and sells vehicle service contracts, which are often called extended warranties. American Auto Shield, LLC designs and administers those contracts. A vehicle service contract is bought separately from a manufacturer's warranty, and the FTC says CarShield's cost roughly $80 to $120 per month.
The private case is Lindsey-Evans v. NRRM, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-00363, filed March 21, 2025 by three customers who want to represent a nationwide class of CarShield buyers. No class has been certified. The two cases are legally separate, so a result in one does not decide the other.
“The FTC brings this action for Defendants' violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, ("TSR"), 16 C.F.R. Part 310. Defendant CarShield advertises, markets, and sells vehicle service contracts ("VSCs") on behalf of Defendant American Auto Shield.”
Source: Federal Trade Commission v. NRRM, LLC d/b/a CarShield and American Auto Shield, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01055 (E.D. Mo.), Complaint, Doc. 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 (filed July 31, 2024)
Why Are People Filing CarShield Lawsuits?
People are filing CarShield lawsuits because they say the coverage promised in CarShield's advertising did not match what happened when they filed repair claims. The FTC's complaint describes ads that promised customers would not get stuck with another high repair bill, and that suggested all repairs, or all repairs to covered systems such as the engine and transmission, would be paid.
The FTC also alleges that telemarketers told callers they could pick any dealer or ASE certified mechanic, that a rental car came at no extra cost, and that a $100 deductible applied to any covered repair. According to the complaint, many customers found repairs not covered, found their choice of shop restricted, or received no rental car.
The private plaintiffs focus on a different moment: the claims process after they paid. They cite CarShield's statement that covered repair claims "will be paid 100% by your administrator" and allege that claim decisions took weeks or months and ended in denials or partial payments. CarShield said it disagreed with many of the FTC's assertions, and the private allegations are unproven.
What Injuries Are Included in the CarShield Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the CarShield lawsuit are four distinct categories of harm, and all of them are financial rather than physical. The FTC and the private plaintiffs describe money spent on repairs, money spent while waiting for decisions, premiums paid for coverage they say was worth less than advertised, and promised benefits that did not arrive. None of these allegations has been decided on the merits by a court.
Denied Repair Claims
A denied repair claim is a request for payment under a vehicle service contract that the administrator refuses to pay, usually citing an exclusion, a coverage limit, or missing documentation.
The FTC alleges that many CarShield customers learned that repairs they believed were covered were not, despite advertising that suggested broad coverage. The agency's December 2025 refund program was aimed at customers whose claims were denied.
Plaintiffs Brenna Sebek and Kevin Sheehan allege that the administrator denied their engine claim on July 19, 2024 after requiring a teardown at their cost, and that they paid nearly $3,500 for the teardown and repairs. They allege the contract itself made the administrator responsible for teardown costs. The allegation is unproven.
Delayed Claim Decisions
A delayed claim decision is a long wait between filing a repair claim and learning whether the contract will pay, during which the owner may be without a vehicle.
April Lindsey-Evans alleges that her claim on a 2010 Volkswagen Tiguan took roughly two months to resolve, ending in a partial approval around May 20, 2024 that excluded her mechanic's labor rate. She says she paid nearly $3,000 for the repair and about $800 for alternative transportation, and kept paying her monthly premium while the claim was pending.
Sebek and Sheehan allege a wait of about two and a half months and roughly $1,500 in alternative transportation costs. The complaint describes repeated requests for photos, service records, and quotes that the plaintiffs say they supplied promptly.
Overpayment for Contract Coverage
Overpayment here means paying monthly premiums for coverage that the buyer says was worth less than what the advertising described.
The FTC says CarShield contracts cost about $80 to $120 per month. The private complaint lists a $89.99 monthly payment for Lindsey-Evans and $169.99 for Sebek and Sheehan.
The private plaintiffs plead that they would not have bought a contract, or would have paid substantially less, had they known coverage would be denied. That theory underlies their fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment counts, which ask for the difference between what buyers paid and what they received.
Unmet Rental Car and Repair Shop Promises
A rental car benefit pays for a replacement vehicle during a covered repair, and repair shop choice lets the owner decide who fixes the vehicle.
The FTC alleges that CarShield's telemarketing promised a rental car at no extra cost and a free choice of repair facility. According to the complaint, the administrator approves a rental car only after authorizing a repair claim, so consumers with denied claims receive no rental car, and many with approved claims pay part of the cost.
The complaint also alleges that consumers were not always allowed to use the shop they chose. These are allegations in the FTC's pleading, and the settlement resolved them without a trial.
Who Qualifies for the CarShield Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You paid CarShield for a vehicle service contract between September 2019 and September 2024 and had a repair claim denied, which is the group the FTC used to send refund checks
- You bought a CarShield contract after hearing an advertisement, a telemarketing pitch, or a celebrity endorsement that you believe misled you, and you want an attorney to review a possible individual claim
- You had a repair claim that was denied, partly paid, or delayed for weeks or months, which resembles the experiences the private plaintiffs describe
You may not qualify if:
- You did not have a repair claim denied in the September 2019 to September 2024 period, which is the group the FTC's refund checks covered
- You want to join the private class action as a class member, since no class has been certified and the named plaintiffs' claims were reportedly sent to arbitration
- You never bought a vehicle service contract through CarShield or American Auto Shield, since the cases concern those contracts only
The FTC's refund checks were already mailed, so qualifying under the FTC group does not mean a new payment is available. Whether an individual claim or arbitration demand remains open depends on your contract's terms and your state's deadlines, and only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can say.
What Is the Current Status of the CarShield Lawsuit?
The current status of the CarShield lawsuit is split between two cases: the FTC case settled and its refunds were mailed in December 2025, while the private class action was paused in May 2026 when a federal judge reportedly sent the named plaintiffs' claims to arbitration. Neither case has produced a trial or a ruling on the merits.
Federal Trade Commission v. NRRM, LLC and American Auto Shield, LLC
The FTC filed its complaint on July 31, 2024 and announced the $10 million settlement the same day. The complaint pleads seven counts: false or misleading claims about coverage, repair facility choice, and endorsements; misrepresentations about performance and about material restrictions; assisting and facilitating Telemarketing Sales Rule violations by American Auto Shield; and violations of prior Commission determinations by CarShield.
The stipulated order bars deceptive statements, requires endorsements to reflect real customer experiences, requires American Auto Shield to monitor third-party marketers, and carries compliance reporting for up to 10 years. The FTC's case page lists the matter as pending, last updated December 11, 2025.
| Proceeding Type | Federal civil enforcement action resolved by stipulated order |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri |
| Case Number | 4:24-cv-01055 |
| FTC File Number | 2223031 |
| Defendants | NRRM, LLC (d/b/a CarShield) and American Auto Shield, LLC |
| Filed | July 31, 2024 |
| Resolution | $10 million stipulated order, announced July 31, 2024 |
| Refunds | 168,179 checks mailed, announced December 11, 2025 |
| Compliance | Reporting requirements for up to 10 years |
The FTC pages reviewed do not name a presiding judge or show the date the court entered the order.
Lindsey-Evans v. NRRM, LLC
Three customers filed the 43-page class action complaint on March 21, 2025. CarShield moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate and waived class actions and jury trials in their contracts. CarComplaints.com reported on May 21, 2026 that Judge Zachary M. Bluestone granted the motion, finding the arbitration agreements valid and enforceable, and that the class action is on hold.
The plaintiffs had argued the agreements were an improper after-the-fact modification of oral agreements and were unconscionable. The reporting says the judge noted the contracts could have been attached to the complaint. The docket itself was not retrieved, so the order's own date and any later filings are unconfirmed.
| Proceeding Type | Putative consumer class action (no class certified) |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri |
| Case Number | 4:25-cv-00363 |
| Judge | Hon. Zachary M. Bluestone (as reported by CarComplaints.com) |
| Plaintiffs | April Lindsey-Evans (North Carolina), Brenna Sebek and Kevin Sheehan (Illinois) |
| Defendants | NRRM, LLC d/b/a CarShield, American Auto Shield, LLC, and Does 1-100 |
| Filed | March 21, 2025 |
| Claims | Eight counts, including breach of contract, fraud, and state consumer protection statutes |
| Status | On hold after arbitration ruling reported May 21, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs' Counsel | Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP and Sauder Schelkopf LLC |
The complaint seeks to represent a nationwide class of all persons in the United States who purchased a vehicle service contract from CarShield, plus Illinois and North Carolina subclasses. Its eight counts are breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Is There a CarShield Lawsuit Settlement?
Yes. There is a CarShield lawsuit settlement in the FTC case, where CarShield and American Auto Shield agreed to a $10 million settlement announced on July 31, 2024, and the FTC has already used the money to mail 168,179 refund checks totaling more than $9.6 million.
The private class action has no settlement, no claim form, and no payout as of November 11, 2026. A settlement resolves allegations without a trial, so the FTC settlement is not a court finding that the allegations were true.
The refund checks went to people who paid CarShield for a vehicle service contract between September 2019 and September 2024 and had a claim denied. The FTC says recipients should cash the check within 90 days and that it never requires payment or account information to receive a refund. The refund administrator is Analytics Consulting LLC at 855-298-8877.
The checks average roughly $57 each, a figure calculated from the FTC's totals rather than stated by the agency, and any individual amount depends on the FTC's own formula. Websites that list a payout date for a CarShield class action are not describing an approved settlement in the private case.
CarShield Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The latest CarShield lawsuit updates run from the September 2022 FTC warning letter to the May 2026 arbitration ruling in the private class action. The entries below show each confirmed filing, settlement step, and refund distribution, and the most recent verified development is dated May 21, 2026.
CarShield Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Federal Judge Sends CarShield Class Action to Arbitration
CarComplaints.com reported that Judge Zachary M. Bluestone granted CarShield's motion to compel arbitration in Lindsey-Evans v. NRRM, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-00363 in the Eastern District of Missouri, putting the private class action on hold after finding the plaintiffs' arbitration agreements valid and enforceable.
FTC Mails 168,179 CarShield Refund Checks
The FTC announced that it was sending more than $9.6 million to 168,179 consumers who paid CarShield for a vehicle service contract between September 2019 and September 2024 and had a claim denied, with recipients told to cash their checks within 90 days.
Three Customers File Private CarShield Class Action
April Lindsey-Evans, Brenna Sebek, and Kevin Sheehan filed a 43-page class action complaint against NRRM, LLC, doing business as CarShield, and American Auto Shield, LLC in the Eastern District of Missouri, pleading eight counts on behalf of a proposed nationwide class.
FTC Case Page Lists Signed Stipulated Order
The FTC's case page for the CarShield matter lists the stipulated order and the unopposed motion to enter it, with a September 20, 2024 date beside the order file; the page does not show the date the court formally entered the order.
FTC Files Complaint and Announces $10 Million CarShield Settlement
The FTC filed Federal Trade Commission v. NRRM, LLC and American Auto Shield, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01055, and announced a $10 million settlement the same day after a 5-0 Commission vote, alleging misleading coverage claims, deceptive telemarketing, and false celebrity endorsements.
CarShield Receives FTC Letter and Notice of Penalty Offenses
According to the FTC's complaint, CarShield received an FTC letter and a Notice of Penalty Offenses on endorsements and testimonials on September 13, 2022, which warned that misrepresenting an endorser as an actual user can lead to civil penalties.
How to File a CarShield Lawsuit
To file a CarShield lawsuit, start with the 6 steps below.
- Check whether you received an FTC refund check: The FTC has already mailed its refund checks, and the refund administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, can be reached at 855-298-8877, while the FTC says a legitimate refund never requires a payment or account information.
- Gather your contract and payment records: The contract, monthly billing statements, and any sales call confirmation show what you bought and what you paid.
- Collect your claim paperwork: Repair invoices, diagnostic reports, denial letters, and emails or call notes with the administrator document a denied or delayed claim.
- Review the contract's arbitration clause: The contract's terms decide whether a dispute goes to court or arbitration, and a federal judge reportedly enforced such a clause against the three named plaintiffs in the private case.
- Report the problem to a consumer protection agency: A complaint to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or to your state attorney general creates a record, though it does not by itself recover money.
- Consult a consumer protection attorney: A qualified attorney can say whether an individual claim or arbitration demand is available, since state laws and deadlines differ.
CarShield Lawsuit is no longer accepting new claims. The FTC settlement is resolved and its refund checks were mailed in December 2025, so there is no claim form to file. The private class action has no settlement, and a federal judge reportedly sent the named plaintiffs' claims to arbitration in May 2026.
What Evidence Do I Need for a CarShield Lawsuit?
The evidence needed for a CarShield lawsuit is mainly the contract, the payment records, and the claim paperwork showing what was promised, paid, and denied. The contract matters most, because it sets coverage, exclusions, and the arbitration terms that a federal judge relied on in the private case.
Useful records include monthly billing statements, repair invoices and diagnostic reports, denial or partial-payment letters, and every email or call note with the administrator. Records of out-of-pocket costs, such as towing, alternative transportation, and teardown charges, show the amount of the loss.
Sales call recordings can also matter. According to reporting on the arbitration ruling, CarShield filed the contract paperwork and transcripts of the sales calls to show the plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate, and the judge noted the plaintiffs could have attached their contracts to their complaint. Requesting a copy of your own contract and call records early avoids that gap.
What Did CarShield Allegedly Know About Its Advertising Claims?
CarShield allegedly kept running celebrity endorsements after the FTC warned it that portraying an endorser as an actual user was unlawful. The FTC's complaint says CarShield received a letter and a Notice of Penalty Offenses on September 13, 2022, then continued to run ads portraying Allen Iverson as a customer at least 3,700 times and Ice-T as an actual user at least 2,400 times.
The complaint further alleges that endorsers including Chris Berman, Ice-T, Vivica A. Fox, Adrienne Janic, and Ernie Hudson held CarShield contracts but never used them for repairs, and that a CarShield officer expressed concern about creating a liability yet allowed the ads to keep airing. One television ad, titled "Game Over," aired at least 18,000 times.
CarShield said it disagreed with many of the FTC's assertions, and it later said its marketing includes more detail about covered repairs and that its spokespeople are actual customers. The settlement did not involve a trial finding on what the companies knew.
| Defendant | Role | FTC counts |
|---|---|---|
| NRRM, LLC (d/b/a CarShield) | St. Peters, Missouri seller and marketer of the vehicle service contracts | Counts I to V against both defendants, plus Count VII for violating prior Commission determinations |
| American Auto Shield, LLC | Wyoming company based in Lakewood, Colorado that designs and administers the contracts | Counts I to V against both defendants, plus Count VI for assisting and facilitating Telemarketing Sales Rule violations |
How Does the CarShield Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The CarShield lawsuit differs from related cases mainly in who is suing whom. The FTC case and the private class action are both brought against CarShield, while CarShield's own lawsuits against competitors are separate cases in which CarShield is the plaintiff.
The government case settled for $10 million with refunds already mailed, whereas the private case seeks to represent all U.S. buyers but has been sent to arbitration. Searchers sometimes confuse these with CarShield's competitor disputes, which concern keyword advertising and employees rather than consumer harm.
| Case | Plaintiff and defendant | Status |
|---|---|---|
| FTC enforcement case (E.D. Mo.) | FTC against CarShield and American Auto Shield | Settled for $10 million; refunds mailed |
| Private class action (E.D. Mo.) | Three customers against CarShield and American Auto Shield | On hold after arbitration ruling reported May 2026 |
| NRRM, LLC v. MVF US LLC, No. 4:23-cv-01133 (E.D. Mo.) | CarShield against another company over a Lanham Act false advertising claim | Claim survived a motion to dismiss in 2024; later status not confirmed |
| CarShield and Endurance disputes | CarShield against competitor Endurance | St. Louis Business Journal reported settlements in June and September 2025 |
None of the competitor cases involves a class of CarShield customers, so they do not create a claim process for buyers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the CarShield lawsuit about?
The CarShield lawsuit is a pair of federal cases over how CarShield's vehicle service contracts were advertised and honored. The FTC alleged misleading coverage and endorsement claims and settled for $10 million, while private plaintiffs allege denied and delayed repair claims in a class action that was sent to arbitration.
Is there a CarShield class action lawsuit?
Yes. A proposed CarShield class action, Lindsey-Evans v. NRRM, LLC, was filed March 21, 2025 in the Eastern District of Missouri, but no class has been certified and the named plaintiffs' claims were reportedly sent to arbitration in May 2026. It is not a multidistrict litigation.
Did CarShield settle the FTC lawsuit?
Yes. CarShield and American Auto Shield settled the FTC lawsuit for $10 million, announced July 31, 2024. The settlement resolved allegations without a trial, and CarShield said it disagreed with many of the FTC's assertions.
Can I still get money from the CarShield lawsuit?
No. The CarShield lawsuit has no open claim form, because the FTC already mailed 168,179 refund checks totaling more than $9.6 million and the private class action has no settlement. People who think they were eligible and did not receive a check can contact the refund administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, at 855-298-8877.
Who was eligible for a CarShield refund check?
People who paid CarShield for a vehicle service contract between September 2019 and September 2024 and had a claim denied were eligible for a refund check from the FTC's CarShield settlement. The FTC says recipients should cash the check within 90 days.
Why did a judge send the CarShield class action to arbitration?
A federal judge reportedly sent the CarShield class action to arbitration because the three plaintiffs' contracts contained arbitration clauses, which the judge found valid and enforceable, according to CarComplaints.com reporting on May 21, 2026. The order's own date was not confirmed from the docket.
Are CarShield's lawsuits against competitors part of this case?
No. CarShield's lawsuits against competitors, such as the disputes with Endurance reported settled in 2025, are separate cases in which CarShield is the plaintiff, and they do not create a claim process for CarShield customers.