Penske lawsuits span the company’s several businesses and cover shareholder litigation, state and federal enforcement actions, wage-and-hour class actions from drivers and technicians, a copyright case against Google brought by Penske Media, and Roger Penske’s role as a witness in the NASCAR antitrust trial. The matters below are the ones with public records and documented outcomes.
Shareholder Suit Over $1 Billion in Stock Buybacks
In late 2023, shareholder Jeffrey Edelman sued the directors of Penske Automotive Group, a former director, and Penske Corporation in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint, C.A. No. 2023-1291-JTL, alleged that the board breached its fiduciary duties by approving stock repurchase programs in 2021, 2022, and 2023 that together exceeded $1 billion.1EDGAR Online. Penske Automotive Group Voting Agreement Exhibit
According to the complaint, the buybacks produced no meaningful return for the company or its minority shareholders and instead let CEO Roger Penske and Penske Corporation increase their voting control without paying the premium an outside buyer would owe for a controlling stake. The suit named several directors, including Detroit banking executive Sandy Pierce.2Detroit Free Press. Lawsuit: Company’s Board Too Deferential to Roger Penske, Blew $1B
The case ended quickly. On January 23, 2024, Penske Automotive entered into a voting agreement with Penske Corporation, and the next day the plaintiff filed a stipulation dismissing the case as moot. The court kept jurisdiction only to consider any application for attorney’s fees.1EDGAR Online. Penske Automotive Group Voting Agreement Exhibit3Automotive News. Penske Automotive Resolves Stock Buyback Lawsuit
Massachusetts Case Over Fraudulent Truck Inspections
In July 2021, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office sued Penske Truck Leasing and six licensed inspectors in Suffolk Superior Court, alleging that Penske had issued fraudulent safety and emissions inspection certificates for 189 heavy-duty fleet trucks. Most of the conduct at issue took place at Penske’s facility on Shawmut Avenue in New Bedford.4Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Truck Rental Company and Six Inspectors Sued for Issuing Fraudulent Vehicle Inspection Stickers
The state alleged inspectors skipped required checks of brakes, fifth wheel couplings, and tire and wheel assemblies. Video reportedly showed inspectors not going under vehicles as required. On emissions testing, the state said inspectors falsified smoke opacity results by failing to insert smoke readers fully into tailpipes, substituting recordings of different vehicles, or conducting tests off camera. The complaint cited violations of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act’s Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, the state Inspection and Maintenance Act, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.5Insurance Journal. Penske Truck Rental Company to Pay Up to $3.5 Million to Resolve Allegations of Fraudulent Motor Vehicle Inspections6Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Penske Truck Rental Company to Pay Up to $3.5 Million to Resolve Allegations of Fraudulent Motor Vehicle Inspections
A consent judgment entered in July 2023 required Penske to pay up to $3.5 million: $3 million upfront and an additional $500,000 contingent on enhanced inspector training at the New Bedford facility and use of a third-party auditor for mobile vehicle inspections for six months. The six individual inspectors were barred indefinitely from performing vehicle inspections in Massachusetts. Penske admitted no wrongdoing and said it believed inspections were “properly and safely conducted,” attributing the dispute to disagreements over the state’s remote monitoring camera system.5Insurance Journal. Penske Truck Rental Company to Pay Up to $3.5 Million to Resolve Allegations of Fraudulent Motor Vehicle Inspections
Emissions Enforcement in California and Indiana
Penske Truck Leasing settled a California Air Resources Board enforcement action for $532,875 in December 2016. CARB found that Penske had failed to comply with the state’s Periodic Smoke Inspection Program and Truck and Bus regulation, involving roughly 700 vehicles that were not properly smoke-tested during 2013 and 2014 and dozens of trucks that missed engine upgrade deadlines. The penalty broke down to $357,375 for 953 smoke-inspection violations across about 692 vehicles and $175,500 for noncompliant trucks under the engine upgrade schedule. Penske also committed to completing low-NOx software upgrades on applicable engines and maintaining ongoing compliance with California’s idling and truck-and-bus rules.7California Air Resources Board. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. Settlement8California Air Resources Board. Penske Truck Leasing Settlement Agreement
In January 2024, the EPA entered a Consent Agreement and Final Order against Penske Logistics LLC concerning its Shelbyville, Indiana facility. The action, docketed CAA-05-2024-0013, addressed Clean Air Act violations and carried a $161,421 penalty. Detailed terms beyond the penalty amount and facility location are not available in the public record reviewed.9U.S. EPA. Penske Logistics LLC Consent Agreement and Final Order
Wage-and-Hour Class Actions by Drivers and Technicians
Three California cases are worth knowing about. The oldest began in 2009, when three drivers filed a class action against Penske Logistics alleging the company denied them the state’s mandated meal and rest breaks. Penske argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempted state break requirements for motor carriers. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument in 2014, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in 2015.10CCJ Digital. Penske Asks Supreme Court to Hear Case Over State-Required Driver Breaks In February 2017, the parties settled for $750,000 covering 344 current and former drivers, with the three lead plaintiffs receiving $15,000 each. Penske said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.11Overdrive. Penske Settles With Drivers in Case Over Unpaid Meal and Rest Breaks
A separate case, Poston v. Penske Logistics LLC (2:21-cv-03939), was filed in May 2021 and removed to the Central District of California. It raised similar claims: unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and unreimbursed business expenses. The court administratively closed the case in January 2022 after the parties reached a settlement, with approval to be handled in a related proceeding known as the McDowell action.12CourtListener. Phil Poston v. Penske Logistics LLC
In 2024, former technician Jaime Garcia filed a putative class action against Penske Truck Leasing in the Eastern District of California (2:24-cv-01881), alleging failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, untimely final wages, and inaccurate pay statements.13Bloomberg Law. Penske Truck Must Defend Ex-Technician’s Wage Class Action Suit The court dismissed the wage-underpayment and break claims for lack of factual detail but allowed the reimbursement, wage-statement, and final-paycheck claims to proceed, and gave Garcia leave to amend.14Midpage. Garcia v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.
DOJ Settlement Over a Reservist’s Reemployment Rights
In May 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice settled a suit against Penske Truck Leasing in the Eastern District of Virginia for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The case involved William Mann, a Staff Sergeant with the Air Force Reserve’s 512th Mortuary Affairs Squadron who was honorably discharged in 2011. According to the government, Mann told Penske he was ready to return to work with medical limitations from a service-related injury. Penske placed him on short-term leave instead of reemploying him and then terminated him two months after he requested more recovery time in October 2011. Under the consent decree, Penske paid Mann $85,000 in lost wages.15U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Against Penske Truck Leasing Co. to Enforce Employment Rights
Penske Media v. Google Over AI Overviews
On September 15, 2025, Penske Media Corporation, publisher of Rolling Stone, Billboard, Variety, and other titles, sued Google in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint, Case No. 1:25-cv-03192, alleges that Google uses Penske Media’s journalism without permission to generate “AI Overviews” that appear at the top of search results, cutting traffic to the original news sites and reducing publisher revenue.16CourtListener. Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC The suit was described as the first by a major U.S. news publisher targeting Google’s use of news content specifically in AI-generated summaries.17AlphaSpread. Penske Media Sues Google Over Use of News Articles in AI Summaries
As of mid-2026, the case is at the motion-to-dismiss stage before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Google filed its motion in January 2026, Penske Media opposed it in February, and Google replied in March. In May 2026, Judge Mehta denied a request for oral argument, saying the court would schedule a hearing “if needed, when it is prepared to address the motions.”16CourtListener. Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC
Roger Penske Ordered to Sit for NASCAR Antitrust Deposition
Roger Penske was pulled into the antitrust case brought in 2024 by 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan) and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR in the Western District of North Carolina. The teams allege that NASCAR’s charter agreement offers no viable alternative and would reduce prize money, amounting to anticompetitive conduct.18Reuters. Judge: Roger Penske, Rick Hendrick Must Give Depositions in 23XI, Front Row Case
NASCAR named Penske and fellow team owner Rick Hendrick as trial witnesses. In November 2025, both sought to avoid full depositions or limit them to narrow topics conducted by video. Judge Kenneth Bell rejected the request and ordered unrestricted, in-person depositions, writing that no individual would receive “special treatment” based on notoriety and that if NASCAR intended to call them at trial, the opposing teams had a right to question them beforehand.19Motorsport.com. Judge Orders Penske and Hendrick to Give Full Depositions to 23XI, Front Row Trial was scheduled to begin December 1, 2025, in Charlotte. Penske is a witness, not a party.
Team Penske’s IndyCar Push to Pass Penalties
Not every legal action against Penske is a court case. In April 2024, IndyCar penalized Team Penske after finding that the team had manipulated software allowing its “Push to Pass” overtake system to be used during race starts and restarts at the Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg on March 10, 2024, in violation of series rules. IndyCar discovered the manipulation during a warmup session before the Long Beach Grand Prix on April 21.20IndyCar. IndyCar Announces Penalties for Team Penske
Josef Newgarden’s and Scott McLaughlin’s entries were disqualified from St. Petersburg, forfeiting all points and prize money. Will Power’s entry lost 10 points. All three cars were fined $25,000. Team Penske president Tim Cindric said the Push to Pass software “was not removed as it should have been, following recently completed hybrid testing.” The organization later dismissed Cindric along with Managing Director Ron Ruzewski and General Manager Kyle Moyer.21Forbes. What McLaren CEO Zak Brown Told IndyCar Owner Roger Penske in Detroit