On October 3, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a 2-1 decision affirmed the dismissal of a putative consumer class action alleging an automaker had misled consumers about what is included in the “destination charge” disclosed to consumers in federally mandated labeling. The decision may be the end of the line for consumer class action plaintiffs seeking to challenge destination charges on the grounds that OEMs allegedly include in them more than the actual cost of delivering vehicles to dealers.

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal

The Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. § 1232—commonly known as the Monroney Act—requires that automobile manufacturers, prior to delivery of vehicles to dealers, affix to the windshield or side window of each vehicle a label disclosing certain information for prospective retail purchasers. This so-called “Monroney label” must include, among other things, the method of delivery to the selling dealer; the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the vehicle; the suggested retail price for installed accessories; and “the amount charged, if any, to such dealer for the transportation of such automobile to the location at which it is delivered to such dealer,” i.e. the “destination charge.”

In BCR Carpentry LLC, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, the Third Circuit affirmed a New Jersey district court trial court decision dismissing a putative class action based on the allegation that a manufacturer’s disclosure of its destination charge was “unlawful” under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”).  The plaintiffs in that case did not allege that the destination charges at issue were not actually charged to dealers; rather, the complaint alleged only that the manufacturer’s destination charge exceeded the actual cost of delivery paid by the manufacturer, resulting in some level of profit to the manufacturer that was not disclosed to New Jersey consumers in violation of the NJCFA.

The Third Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the lawsuit. The majority observed that to state a claim under the NJCFA, the plaintiffs must allege an “unlawful practice,” such as affirmative acts of deception or knowing omissions of material fact, and that the complaint at issue failed to do so. Although plaintiffs alleged the OEM’s disclosure was affirmatively deceptive because consumers generally understand destination charges represent “a straight pass-along cost,” these allegations were based on statements by third party sources like J.D. Power and Consumer Reports, not statements by the OEM itself. Moreover, the majority observed, “no reasonable consumer would be surprised to learn that a ‘charge’ includes profit,” and OEMs had no duty to disclose to consumers additional information about charges to dealers.

End of the Line?

The Third Circuit majority observed they were “hardly alone in reaching that conclusion,” citing similar decisions from federal district courts in Delaware and California, as well as a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, rejecting claims based on alleged OEM profits baked into destination charges. In Romoff v. General Motors, LLC, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a similar lawsuit, finding that “the destination fee is charged to the dealers and paid by them to [the OEM], regardless of Plaintiffs’ speculative reasoning concerning what is responsible for the makeup of such fees.” With two appellate courts having now affirmed dismissal, consumer plaintiffs appear to have come to the end of the line in their challenge to destination charges.