On September 30, Michael Dingman, Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, addressed the National Association of Motor Vehicle Boards and Commissions in Rhode Island. The audience included state motor vehicle board regulators and automotive trade association executives (ATAEs) from across the country.
The hour-long session, moderated by Lauren Bailey, Vice President of State Legal and Regulatory Affairs at ComplyAuto, focused on pricing transparency and how it applies to dealership advertising in practice. Mr. Dingman responded to questions submitted in advance by attendees. At the outset, he noted that the views he expressed were his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. While his remarks largely reaffirmed the the pricing transparency principles reflected in the FTC’s March warning letters and September staff FAQs, they also addressed several practical scenarios that guidance did not explicitly cover and offered his perspective on questions the written guidance does not expressly resolve. His remarks did not amend the FAQs, which themselves represent staff views and are not binding on the public or the Commission. A summary of his responses follows.
This summary is provided for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Dealers must also consider applicable state advertising requirements.
Government and Non-Government Fees
Government charges that the consumer is legally obligated to pay, such as applicable taxes and government title and registration fees owed by the consumer, may be excluded from the advertised price. Any fee the dealer requires the consumer to pay, however, must be included unless it falls within that government-charge exception.
The distinction turns on who is legally responsible for the charge — not simply whether the fee is regulated, paid to a government agency, or passed through without a markup. A state law that authorizes or caps a document processing fee does not make it a government-required charge owed by the consumer. If the dealer requires the customer to pay it, it must be included in the advertised price. Likewise, a government fee imposed on the dealership must be included if the dealership passes it on to the customer.
Asked about small, regulated charges associated with emissions testing and electronic filing, Mr. Dingman said the same distinction applies: if the government does not require the consumer to pay the charge, but the dealership does, it belongs in the advertised price. The fee’s label alone does not resolve the question; dealers should examine the underlying legal obligation. A dealer may instead absorb the expense without separately charging the customer.
Itemization and Price Breakdowns
The most prominently displayed price must be the price at which any consumer can actually purchase the vehicle. Provided that requirement is met, dealers may offer additional pricing detail, such as an itemized breakdown of MSRP, rebates, discounts, and included fees.
Mr. Dingman indicated that detailed breakdowns can be helpful, but the presentation must not mislead consumers. For example, a fee’s name should not imply that the customer receives a benefit that is not actually provided. Dealers should also account for state requirements governing how particular fees must be identified or disclosed.
Optional Add-Ons
The central concern with add-ons is misrepresentation. An advertisement may not suggest that an add-on is required when it is optional, or that it cannot be removed when it can. Conversely, if an add-on is in fact mandatory, its cost must be included in the advertised price.
Calling a product “optional” is not enough: the customer must actually be able to decline it and purchase the vehicle at the advertised price without paying for it. Dealers may offer protection packages, accessories, and other optional products, but must accurately describe their cost and may not charge customers for products they did not agree to purchase.
Savings and Discount Claims
Because these claims depend heavily on context, Mr. Dingman declined to address them in broad terms. The guiding principle is that any savings or discount claim must be truthful in the context of the advertisement as a whole. If a discount is conditional, time-limited, or restricted to particular models or trims, the advertisement must clearly disclose those limitations.
For example, a claim such as “Save $10,000” should not create the impression that the savings apply across the dealer’s inventory if they apply only to a particular vehicle or trim. Conditions such as financing through the dealership or trading in a vehicle must also be clear. Disclosure of those conditions does not, by itself, permit a dealer to make a price available only to qualifying customers the most prominent price in the advertisement.
Call-to-Action Buttons
Mr. Dingman indicated that buttons such as “Get My Price” or “Call for Price” may appear alongside the advertised price. Dealers remain free to negotiate, but the button’s wording and surrounding presentation must be truthful. In particular, a button should not suggest that clicking or calling will produce a lower price if that is not true. The call to action should not obscure or contradict the actual advertised price.
Availability of In-Transit Vehicles
Because many consumers shop online, they rely heavily on digital vehicle listings. The objective is to prevent a consumer from responding to an online advertisement for a specific vehicle only to discover at the dealership the vehicle is not available as the advertisement led the consumer to expect.
Dealers may advertise vehicles that are not on the lot, but must clearly disclose when an advertised vehicle is not physically on site, whether it is in transit or located elsewhere. Mr. Dingman explained that, in his view, consumers would understand “in transit” to mean the vehicle is already on its way to the dealership. If the vehicle has not yet been built or shipped, the advertisement should accurately describe that status instead.
In addition, an advertised in-transit vehicle must be available for purchase upon arrival and may not already be allocated to fulfill another customer’s paid-for order.
Delivery Timelines for In-Transit Vehicles
The Commission has previously indicated that delivery “within one to two business days” would be acceptable. Mr. Dingman acknowledged, however, that delays may arise from circumstances outside the dealer’s control. In his view, whether an advertisement is deceptive in such cases would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as whether delays are routine, how frequently transport disruptions occur, and what the advertisement actually promises.
An isolated delay caused by shipping damage, for example, presents a different situation from a recurring pattern of advertising vehicles that are not available when consumers are led to expect them. Dealers should ensure that any stated arrival date or delivery timeline accurately reflects the information available to them.
Advertising Controlled by Third Parties
Responsibility can extend to each party that controls an advertisement, including the dealership, manufacturer, and third-party marketing vendor or listing site. More than one party may have responsibility for the same advertisement. Dealers should provide accurate pricing information and take the steps within their control to ensure it is displayed properly.
Mr. Dingman discussed concerns about manufacturer requirements or third-party platform limitations that interfere with accurate advertising, such as restrictions on displaying the actual price most prominently or identifying a vehicle as in transit. He encouraged attendees to report problems they cannot resolve with the manufacturer or platform.
Mr. Dingman encouraged attendees to report potential Section 5 violations by any of these parties to help direct enforcement resources. Reports may be submitted at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, with details about the conduct and any available supporting documentation.
Fraudulently Cloned Websites
Dealers who discover scam websites impersonating their dealership should report them to ReportFraud@ftc.gov for further review. Reports should identify the fraudulent website and explain how it is impersonating the dealership, including any copied branding, inventory listings, or photographs.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Advertising
AI is reshaping the economy, but its use does not change an advertiser’s legal obligations. AI-generated advertisements must be accurate and may not be deceptive in either their text or their visual content.
As a practical step, dealers should review AI-generated copy and images before publication to confirm that they accurately represent the vehicle, its features, its price, and its availability. Using AI to create an advertisement does not relieve the advertiser of responsibility for misleading content.
How ComplyAuto Guardian Can Help
Mr. Dingman’s remarks, along with the FTC’s FAQs and prior publications, are consistent with the guidance ComplyAuto has provided to dealers. ComplyAuto Guardian is designed to help dealerships identify potential advertising compliance issues under federal and state requirements across multiple media, including email and text messages.
Contact ComplyAuto today to learn how Guardian can support your advertising compliance program.