FTC tells car dealers the advertised price is the price, using the law it has had all along

On 15 September 2026 staff of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection published a seven-page document, "Automobile Industry Pricing Transparency: FAQs". Across 14 numbered questions it says an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can walk in and pay, and that the only amounts a dealer may leave out are charges a Federal, State or local government agency requires the consumer to pay directly. Everything else goes into the advertised number.

That is close to what the Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule would have required. The FAQs never mention it. A text search of the published PDF returns zero hits for "CARS Rule", zero for "Combating Auto Retail Scams" and zero for "463", the part of the Code of Federal Regulations the rule occupied. "FTC Act" appears 15 times. The Commission is doing by enforcement what it could not finish by regulation.

"The FTC Act requires truthful and accurate pricing, which brings significant benefits for consumers and competition," said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, in the release announcing the guidance.

The rule that never ran a single day

The CARS Rule was published as a final rule on 4 January 2024 at 89 FR 590, codified at 16 CFR part 463, with an effective date of 30 July 2024. It would have required accurate pricing disclosures and express informed consent for charges.

The National Automobile Dealers Association and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review on or about 5 January 2024. On 22 February 2024, at 89 FR 13267, the Commission delayed the rule's effective date indefinitely while the challenge ran. It was never restored, and no dealer was ever subject to it.

On 27 January 2025 the Fifth Circuit vacated the rule in Nat'l Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. FTC, 127 F.4th 549, No. 24-60013, on procedural grounds. As the Commission's own later notice records, the court found that the FTC "violated its own regulations when it failed to issue an ANPRM for the CARS Rule", and that the error was not harmless.

On 12 February 2026, at 91 FR 6507, the Commission published a final rule withdrawing the CARS Rule to conform with the decision, effective the same day. A structure query of Title 16 as of 1 September 2026 returns no part 463 at all.

The authority survived. Dodd-Frank, at 12 U.S.C. 5519(d), lets the Commission write rules on unfair or deceptive acts by motor vehicle dealers, and the vacatur did not touch it. The 2026 regulatory agenda, at 91 FR 53156, names no successor rulemaking.

What has to be in the number

The test is in FAQ 2. "The FTC Act requires that the advertised price be the actual price any consumer can walk in and pay," the staff write. "In other words, if a dealer requires a consumer to pay a fee to purchase the car, that fee must be included in the advertised price."

The carve-out is the only one. "Dealers may exclude government-required charges, i.e., amounts a Federal, State, or local government agency requires the consumer to pay directly," the document says. "As explained in more detail below, everything else must be included in the advertised price." Two categories are named as captured: fees a government authorises but does not mandate, and fees the government charges the dealer that the dealer passes along.

The worked examples carry exact figures. A dealer advertising a $40,000 vehicle who would charge any buyer an $85 document fee must advertise $40,085. Where one buyer is quoted a discounted document fee and another the full one, the advertised price must reflect the higher fee. A $34,999 car may be advertised alongside a $1,000 first-responder discount so long as $34,999 is most prominent and the terms are clear; a $39,999 vehicle may carry a $2,000 dealer-financing discount on the same condition. But a car advertised at $24,999 to a buyer who arrives and is quoted $26,499, because only a handful of earlier shoppers qualified, is a consumer who has been misled.

Prominence is not a font-size rule: an actual price in 16-point type beside a smaller MSRP still fails if the MSRP sits where the eye goes first. The duty binds every party with control over the advertising.

What it costs to get it wrong

FAQ 13 asks how long dealers have to come into compliance. The answer refuses the premise. "Price transparency is not a new requirement, and it has tremendous benefits for consumers and for competition," the staff write. "The FTC Act and Section 5's requirements have been in effect for decades. If anyone is misleading consumers about price, they are risking FTC action." The document also says it is not binding on the public or the Commission.

The civil penalty ceiling under Section 5 is $53,088 per violation, and it is frozen for 2026. A notice published at 91 FR 58446 on 15 September, the same day as the FAQs, says 2025 levels continue to apply because OMB Memorandum M-26-11 of 17 April 2026 cancelled this year's adjustment after a government shutdown left the Bureau of Labor Statistics unable to produce October 2025 CPI-U data.

On 13 March 2026 the Bureau sent warning letters to 97 auto groups over six named pricing practices, from prices that omit required fees to ads for vehicles that do not exist.

On 2 April 2026 the FTC and the Maryland Attorney General announced a resolution under which consumers charged more than $75 million in total between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2025 may be eligible for redress, and Lindsay Auto Group would pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General's office. The Commission approved the proposed order 2-0.

The proposed order requires Lindsay to clearly and conspicuously disclose the total amount a consumer must pay, excluding only required government charges, and to obtain express informed consent before charging any vehicle-related fee. Those are the two duties the vacated rule would have imposed on every dealer in the country. Here they would land on one group, by consent order.

What is not settled

The FAQs refuse any numeric test for prominence, calling every advertisement a fact-specific inquiry, and do not name destination charges, dealer-installed accessories or market-adjustment markups. Nothing reviewed states what weight a court would give a document the agency says binds neither the public nor itself, or whether the Commission means to attempt the rulemaking again. Of the three auto cases the March letters called pending, only Lindsay has a publicly announced resolution.

Two small discrepancies sit in the FTC's own papers. The March 2026 warning letter's second footnote gives the Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rule an effective date of 5 May 2025, while the Federal Register gives 12 May 2025. And the release announcing the FAQs displays 15 September 2026 while its own published-time metadata reads 2026-09-17T20:30:44Z.