Automotive dealers operating Dealer Management Systems (DMS) software from CDK Global or The Reynolds and Reynolds Company may be eligible for compensation from a $129.5 million class action settlement approved on February 25, 2025. The settlement resolves allegations that CDK and Reynolds conspired to fix and artificially inflate prices for dealer management services between September 1, 2013 and August 15, 2024. If you operated a dealership and purchased DMS software from either company during this period, you likely qualify for a payment—no proof of purchase is required.
This article explains who qualifies, how much you might receive, and the steps you need to take to claim your compensation before deadlines pass. The combined settlement of $129.5 million ($100 million from CDK Global and $29.5 million from Reynolds) represents one of the largest antitrust victories for automotive dealers in recent years. Unlike many settlements, this one does not require you to submit original receipts or extensive documentation.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Dealer Management Systems Settlement About?
- Who Qualifies for the Dealer Management Systems Settlement?
- Settlement Amount and What You Could Receive
- How to File a Dealer Management Systems Settlement Claim
- Key Dates and Deadlines for the Settlement
- Understanding the Antitrust Allegations and Their Impact on Dealerships
- What This Settlement Means for Dealers Going Forward
What Is the Dealer Management Systems Settlement About?
This settlement stems from a federal antitrust lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (MDL 2817, 18-cv-00864) alleging that cdk Global and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company violated federal and state antitrust laws by conspiring to fix and maintain artificially high prices for dealer management software. Dealer Management Systems are critical software platforms that automotive dealerships rely on to manage inventory, customer relationships, accounting, service departments, and sales operations. For decades, CDK and Reynolds have dominated the DMS market, making them the primary vendors for most independent and franchise dealerships across the United States. The lawsuit alleged that rather than competing on price, the two companies worked together to keep prices artificially elevated, preventing dealerships from benefiting from fair market competition. This allegedly harmed thousands of dealership owners and operators who had little choice but to pay whatever rates CDK and Reynolds charged.
The dealers lacked viable alternatives because switching DMS platforms is expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive to business operations. According to the settlement documents, the anticompetitive conduct occurred over an 11-year period from September 2013 through August 2024, affecting virtually every dealership in the country that used either vendor’s system. neither CDK Global nor The Reynolds and Reynolds Company admitted any wrongdoing in settling the case. Both companies denied all allegations. This settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or guilt; rather, it is a business resolution to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. The settlement was approved by the court on February 25, 2025, after the judge determined that the settlement terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class members.
Who Qualifies for the Dealer Management Systems Settlement?
You are eligible to claim compensation from this settlement if you owned or operated a dealership that purchased or paid for Dealer Management Services from either CDK Global or The Reynolds and Reynolds Company at any point between September 1, 2013 and August 15, 2024. The settlement defines an eligible “Claimant” as any dealership or person who paid DMS fees during this service period. This includes sole proprietors, corporate owners, partnership representatives, and family members responsible for dealership operations. The beauty of this settlement is that no proof of purchase is required. You do not need to submit original invoices, credit card statements, or service agreements. You do not need to prove how much you paid or for how long you subscribed.
The settlement administrators will use CDK and Reynolds’ own transaction records to verify claims, and in many cases, they may already know your dealership name and payment history directly from the defendants’ databases. If you believe you operated a dealership and paid for DMS services from either company during this period, you almost certainly qualify to file a claim. The only real limitation is that the claim must be made by the dealership owner or operator, not by third parties or employees without decision-making authority. However, if you operated a dealership but never used CDK or Reynolds’ DMS—perhaps you used Dealertrack, Vinsolutions, or another platform—you would not be eligible. Similarly, if you used their systems but only after August 15, 2024, your payment period falls outside the service window and you would not qualify. Additionally, claims must be submitted by January 10, 2025—a deadline that has now passed. If you missed this deadline, you may still have limited options to pursue claims through the claims administrator, but delays will significantly complicate your ability to recover compensation.
Settlement Amount and What You Could Receive
The total settlement fund of $129.5 million is divided as follows: $100 million from CDK Global and $29.5 million from The Reynolds and Reynolds Company. After attorneys’ fees (33% of the combined $100 million CDK settlement fund and $29.25 million Reynolds settlement fund) and litigation expenses of $7,192,133.86 are deducted, the remaining funds are distributed to eligible dealers. Additionally, 23 class representatives who provided leadership throughout the case will receive service awards of $10,000 each, totaling $230,000. The actual payment you receive depends on the total number of valid claims filed, the claims administrator’s approval of your claim, and your dealership’s share of the DMS fees paid during the eligible period. There is no fixed amount per claim—instead, the settlement fund is divided proportionally among all approved claims. A dealership that paid substantial DMS fees for the entire 11-year period will receive a larger share than a dealership that only paid for a few years. For example, a multi-location dealership that has used CDK for the full service period may receive $15,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on the total settlement amount available after legal fees.
A smaller dealership or one that switched systems mid-period might receive $1,000 to $10,000. These are estimates based on settlement mathematics, not guarantees. One important limitation: the settlement fund is fixed at $129.5 million. If thousands of dealerships file claims, each individual claim receives a smaller payment because the same fund is divided among more claimants. Conversely, if relatively few dealerships file claims, each approved claim receives a larger payment. This creates an incentive to file quickly, but the deadline has already passed. Claims submitted after January 10, 2025 will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the claims administrator and may be rejected as untimely, though late claims are sometimes accepted if good cause is shown (illness, language barriers, or administrative delays by the settlement website).
How to File a Dealer Management Systems Settlement Claim
Filing your claim is the critical next step to ensure you receive your compensation. The official claims website is www.dealershipclassdmssettlement.com. Visit this site to access the claim form, which you can submit online. The form will ask for basic information about your dealership, including the dealership name, location(s), principal owner or operator name, and the dates during which you paid for DMS services from CDK or Reynolds. You will not need to provide original invoices, payment confirmations, or detailed transaction records. The claims administrator will use the defendants’ internal databases to verify your claim against their billing records. If your dealership name and details match CDK or Reynolds’ customer files, your claim will likely be approved.
If there are discrepancies—for example, if the dealership was registered under a corporate parent company name—you may need to provide evidence of that relationship, such as a business license or corporate resolution. In most cases, however, the process is straightforward and takes 10 to 15 minutes to complete online. The comparison between this settlement and others in the automotive or technology sector reveals that this one is unusually favorable to claimants. Unlike some settlements that require extensive documentation or have rigid eligibility rules, this settlement trusts the defendants’ own records and does not impose a burden of proof on individual dealers. This reduces friction and increases the likelihood that your claim will be approved. However, the tradeoff is that the claims deadline has already passed, and any late claims face higher scrutiny. If you are reading this after January 10, 2025, contact the claims administrator immediately to determine if your late claim can still be processed.
Key Dates and Deadlines for the Settlement
The original claims deadline was January 10, 2025, which has now passed. This deadline was set well in advance and was publicized through court notices, the settlement website, and industry publications. If you were aware of this settlement and intended to file, that deadline is now closed. However, the settlement does not end on any particular date soon. The claims administrator continues to evaluate and process claims, and there may be some flexibility for late filings in exceptional circumstances. Court approval of the settlement was finalized on February 25, 2025. This is the date the federal judge determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The approval is final and not subject to further appeal (any appeals would have been filed within the allowed period).
Final settlement payments are expected to be distributed in the months following court approval, though the exact timeline depends on how quickly the claims administrator processes and approves all claims. In most class action settlements, claimants receive their checks or direct deposits within 6 to 9 months of court approval, though some claims may take longer if additional documentation is requested. The service period covered by the settlement—September 1, 2013 through August 15, 2024—is fixed and cannot be extended. If you paid DMS fees before September 1, 2013, those payments are not covered. If you paid after August 15, 2024, those payments are also not covered. This is an important limitation. For example, a dealership that switched from CDK to Reynolds on August 20, 2024 would be ineligible for the subsequent Reynolds charges, but would qualify for prior CDK payments within the eligible window. A dealership that began using DMS software on August 10, 2024 would qualify only for the few days of service within the settlement period.
Understanding the Antitrust Allegations and Their Impact on Dealerships
The core allegation in this case is price-fixing—the idea that CDK and Reynolds, the two dominant vendors in the DMS market, agreed not to compete on price and instead maintained prices at artificially high levels. In a healthy competitive market, two major vendors would vie for customers’ business by offering better prices, newer features, or superior customer service. But if the companies agreed to keep prices high regardless, dealerships have no use to negotiate better rates. This is fundamentally different from a situation where CDK and Reynolds independently decided that DMS software was worth a certain price. The impact on dealerships has been substantial. Dealer Management Systems software typically costs dealerships thousands to tens of thousands of dollars annually, and many dealerships pay these fees to multiple vendors (DMS, inventory management, accounting integration, etc.). Over an 11-year period, a typical dealership’s cumulative DMS spending could easily exceed $100,000.
If prices were artificially inflated through collusion, dealerships overpaid collectively by hundreds of millions of dollars—money that could have been reinvested in customer service, facility improvements, or staff compensation. The settlement seeks to return a portion of those overcharges to the dealers who paid them. One important caveat: CDK and Reynolds have not admitted that prices were actually fixed. Both companies maintain that they competed vigorously and that their pricing was based on the value and features of their respective systems. The settlement is a compromise that avoids the costs and risks of trial without requiring the defendants to admit liability. This is common in antitrust settlements, where companies settle to avoid years of litigation even if they contest the allegations. From a claimant’s perspective, what matters is that the settlement is approved and funded—not whether the companies admit wrongdoing.
What This Settlement Means for Dealers Going Forward
The approval of this settlement sends an important signal to technology vendors in the automotive space and beyond: antitrust enforcers and the courts will scrutinize anticompetitive behavior, and dealers have recourse through litigation. While this specific case addressed DMS pricing from 2013 to 2024, it establishes precedent that dealers can organize collectively to challenge unfair vendor practices. Future dealerships may feel emboldened to negotiate harder with CDK, Reynolds, and other technology providers, knowing that collusion or monopolistic practices can result in costly settlements. However, the settlement also highlights the consolidation in the DMS market.
CDK Global and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company remain the two largest vendors. Despite the legal victory, dealers still depend on these platforms for daily operations, and there are limited alternative systems with equivalent functionality and market penetration. The settlement addresses past overcharges but does not immediately change the competitive landscape. Dealers should continue to negotiate contracts carefully, track pricing changes, and consider multi-vendor strategies to reduce dependence on any single platform. The lesson from this case is that consolidation in critical business software markets creates risk, and antitrust enforcement is one tool—but not the only tool—to address it.