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"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.