FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.
None. This is non-binding staff guidance and no remedies were imposed on any entity. The FTC separately noted it sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026, continues to bring lawsuits against dealers engaged in deceptive pricing, and encourages the public and dealers to report potential violations at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Although no entity was named, in-house counsel at dealerships, advertising agencies, and online vehicle listing/lead-generation platforms should audit advertising agency agreements, website and listing-platform vendor contracts, and F&I add-on product contracts to ensure pricing representations align with the FTC's price transparency FAQs. Key clauses to review include: representations and warranties that all advertised prices include every mandatory fee (e.g., document/prep fees) and exclude only government-required charges; compliance obligations requiring third-party ad creative, price feeds, and inventory listings to disclose total pricing consistent with FTC Act Section 5; approval and update workflows for price changes (including vehicles in transit); rebate and discount disclosure standards; and alignment between the advertised price and the final consumer contract so customers are never charged above the advertised amount. Where vendor systems control displayed pricing, teams should add audit rights, compliance certifications, and indemnification for deceptive-pricing claims.
Entity
Automobile industry (auto dealers) - no named respondent; industry-wide guidance publication
Industry
AutomotiveOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-publishes-price-transparency-faqs-auto-dealers
automobile industry pricing transparency faqs
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/automobile-industry-pricing-transparency-faqs
ftc warns 97 auto dealership groups about deceptive pricing
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/ftc-warns-97-auto-dealership-groups-about-deceptive-pricing
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"FTC Publishes Price Transparency FAQs for Auto Dealers"
"September 15, 2026"
"Staff of the Federal Trade Commission today published"
"guidance is intended to help dealers and others in the auto industry better understand how the law applies to their advertising"
"to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act"
"The FTC Act requires truthful and accurate pricing"
$600K
The FTC and Washington alleged that Riverside Payments and affiliates misrepresented savings and cancellation terms, concealed fees and auto-renewing contracts, and obtained consumers’ financial information using false or fraudulent statements. The proposed stipulated order requires a $600,000 payment, customer notice and a period to rescind agreements without penalty, and prohibits deceptive claims while requiring clear disclosures, informed consent for negative-option billing, and a simple cancellation method.
FTC staff announced warning letters to 25 healthcare plan marketers and lead generators about deceptive or unfair claims concerning plan benefits, coverage, costs, and enrollment incentives. The letters do not allege wrongdoing by their recipients or impose penalties; they encourage companies to review their advertisements for compliance.
The FTC summarized enforcement actions and other efforts targeting businesses and individuals allegedly impersonating government agencies or legitimate businesses. The release reports more than $80 million in consumer redress across prior actions and takedowns of 19 websites, but it does not announce a new settlement or impose a specific penalty.
The FTC and state and local co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging Toast imposed hidden and unauthorized fees, enrolled restaurants in add-ons without consent, obstructed subscription cancellations, and misrepresented customer support availability. The complaint is pending in federal court; the press release announces no monetary penalty or imposed remedy.
The FTC issued information orders to nine companies to examine whether they use personal data and other factors to set individualized consumer prices or gig-worker compensation. This is a study and information-gathering inquiry, not a finding that the companies violated the law; recipients must respond within 45 days of receiving the orders.
The FTC and 20 states sued Dollar General, alleging that it repeatedly charged customers more at checkout than advertised prices and failed to correct the problem despite consumer complaints and corporate knowledge. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state laws; the case is pending, and the press release does not report a penalty or final remedy.