FCA to Pay $40M Fine for ‘Cookie Jar’ Sales Reports
FCA US and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will pay $40 million to settle charges leveled by the SEC, which accused the automaker of misleading investors by falsifying monthly sales reports to maintain the appearance of monthly gains.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and its U.S. division will pay a $40 million fine to settle charges stemming from allegedly falsified monthly sales reports.
Photo courtesy Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the close of an investigation into FCA US LLC and its parent company, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., which were accused of misleading investors about the number of new vehicles sold to customers in the United States each month.
Read: FCA Settles Dealer Antitrust Suit
Without admitting nor denying the findings of a commission set up to investigate the charges, the companies have agreed to pay a $40 million civil penalty and pledged to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the SEC’s order, between 2012 and 2016, FCA US issued monthly press releases falsely reporting new vehicle sales and falsely touting a “streak” of uninterrupted monthly year-over-year sales growth, when in fact, the growth streak had been broken in September 2013. The companies included those press releases in their SEC filings.
FCA US was accused of paying dealers to maintain a database of actual but unreported sales, which employees often referred to as a ‘cookie jar.’
FCA US inflated new vehicle sales results by paying dealers to report fake vehicle sales and maintaining a database of actual but unreported sales, which employees often referred to as a “cookie jar.” In months when the growth streak would have ended or when FCA US fell short of other targets, FCA US dipped into the “cookie jar” and reported old sales as if they had just occurred, SEC officials said.
“New vehicle sales figures provide investors insight into the demand for an automaker’s products, a key factor in assessing the company’s performance,” said Antonia Chion, associate director of the SEC’s enforcement division. “This case underscores the need for companies to truthfully disclose their key performance indicators.”
More Compliance

Dealer Ads and the FTC
The agency has made it clear in recent enforcement actions and warnings, in auto retail and other industries, that advertised prices must include all nonoptional costs to the consumer.
Read More →
AAMS Training and Mosaic Compliance Services Merge
The strategic combination is intended to expand technology-driven compliance solutions for the automotive industry.
Read More →
The Jurisprudence of Pricing
Legal concept helps makes sense of California’s recently passed version of the failed federal CARS legislation.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Enforcement Priorities
The upshot is don’t relax, because regulation indeed continues.
Read More →
June Is Automotive Service Professionals Month
Observance is opportunity to thank technicians for their crucial role in auto retail.
Read More →
Cox Automotive Releases Compliance Guide
New edition walks auto dealers through relevant regulations for 2025.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Retail Automotive
Administration’s plans should generally bode well for the industry.
Read More →
CARS Rule Update: 5th Circuit Oral Arguments Recap
In this video, Jim Ganther of Mosaic Compliance Services, recaps the key takeaways from the oral arguments in the critical CARS Rule case, including potential outcomes and what dealers should do to stay ahead of compliance changes.
Read More →
State of the CARS Rule, Part 3
The players in the automotive industry should coordinate their responses to this pending regulation.
Read More →
The Future of Car Dealer Documents
Where forms, documents, agreements and contracts could be in 50 years.
Read More →