FTC Puts Auto Pricing Guidance into Action in Settlement with Florida Dealership Group

In this piece for Kelly Drye, authors Donnelly L. McDowell, Ioana Gorecki & Salim Rashid look at the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) enforcement action against Greenway Auto Group, a Florida dealership group operating more than 35 locations. The case follows the FTC’s release of guidance on automobile pricing transparency and alleges that Greenway advertised misleading vehicle prices, incorporated conditional rebates into advertised prices, inflated government charges and fees, and distributed mailers falsely promising cash prizes. The FTC also alleges that the dealership continued these practices after receiving a warning letter from the agency in March 2026.

According to the complaint, more than 92% of consumers purchasing vehicles advertised by Greenway between March 2023 and May 2026 paid more than the advertised price, by an average of at least $3,354, excluding government charges and optional add-ons. Alleged practices included omitting dealer and administrative fees from advertised prices, imposing a $995 loyalty fee on non-returning customers, charging $2,295 for a mandatory add-on package, and inflating mandatory government fees. The FTC further alleges that Greenway promoted its pricing as transparent while continuing to charge consumers more than the prices displayed online.

The stipulated order requires Greenway to display the total price consumers must pay as the most prominent advertised price, including all mandatory fees and charges, with only government-required charges eligible for exclusion. Unlike several earlier dealership settlements, the order does not impose monetary relief. However, its requirements closely reflect the FTC’s recently published pricing guidance, reinforcing the agency’s expectations for clear and accurate advertising.

The authors highlight three practical lessons for automobile dealers and advertisers: mandatory charges must be included in the prominently displayed total price; conditional discounts based on factors such as customer loyalty or financing eligibility should not determine the headline price available to all consumers; and claims such as “all-in price” or “zero hidden fees” must accurately reflect actual sales practices. Misleading transparency claims may increase enforcement risk when dealerships fail to align their advertising with the prices consumers ultimately pay.

CONTINUE READING…