The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) closed out two cases against car dealers last week, with one ending with the simultaneous filing of a complaint and proposed consent judgment and the other ending in dismissal. These different outcomes do not signal a shift by the FTC away from pricing transparency in dealer advertising as an enforcement priority, but rather appear to be the product of skepticism of current FTC leadership toward the use of in-house administrative law judges to adjudicate agency enforcement actions. The FTC’s recently-issued guidance on pricing transparency in dealer advertising, together with multi-million dollar settlements in cases brought against new car dealers by the FTC acting together with state law enforcers, suggest the FTC remains committed to “leveling the playing field” for new car dealers by enforcing Section 5 of the FTC Act to require pricing transparency in dealer advertising.

Quick Win for FTC On Price Transparency in Advertising

On October 8, 2026, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court in Florida alleging that Greenway Automotive (“Greenway”), an Orlando-based dealer group, advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below what it actually charged. According to the complaint, from March 2023 through May 2026, more than 92% of customers at Greenway’s stores paid higher prices than the those advertised online by an average of $3,354. The FTC claimed the difference came from undisclosed administrative, dealer, delivery, and processing fees, as well as mandatory add-on packages not included in the advertised price. The complaint also alleges that some of Greenway’s advertised prices reflected conditional rebates for which only some buyers were eligible, and that mailers were sent promising cash prizes that never existed.

Greenway was among the 97 dealer groups across the country that received a March 2026 warning letter from the FTC urging them to ensure the “price consumers see in advertising is the actual price they will pay” and warning the FTC would take action to prevent unfair and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC alleged that even after receiving this warning, Greenway nevertheless continued to “advertise vehicles for thousands less than the actual price, to tack on dealer-imposed fees, to tell consumers they must pay for mandatory add-on packages that are not included in the advertised price, and to claim that the prominent and unqualified ‘Greenway sale price’ is premised on unavailable discounts and rebates.”

At the same time it filed the complaint, the FTC also filed an unopposed motion seeking leave to file a stipulated order for a permanent injunction. Under the stipulated order, Greenway neither admitted nor denied the allegations of the complaint, but agreed its price ads must prominently show the “Total Price” as defined in the order to mean “the maximum total price, including all mandatory fees or charges a consumer must pay for a motor vehicle, except that charges a Federal, State, or local government agency, unit, or department requires the consumer to pay may be excluded.” The order also bars Greenway from making misrepresentations about whether fees, products, or financing are optional.

Because the FTC Act permits the FTC to seek injunctive relief and not damages, the Greenway settlement carries no monetary penalty. Instead, Greenway must cease the challenged practices and submit compliance reports to the FTC. If Greenway violates the consent order, however, the FTC can seek civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation, thus giving teeth to the FTC’s enforcement action.

FTC Abandons In-House Enforcement Action

Just three days earlier, on October 5, 2026, the FTC abandoned its effort to pursue an enforcement action brought against Asbury Automotive Group (“Asbury”) before an in-house administrative law judge at the FTC. In the administrative complaint in that action, filed by the FTC under the leadership of then-FTC Chair Lina Khan during the Biden Administration in August 2024, the FTC alleged that three Asbury new car dealerships had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act through various unfair and deceptive actions, including payment packing; adding finance and insurance products to deals without consumer knowledge; and misleading customers about add-on products.

The administrative case stalled after Asbury challenged it on constitutional grounds in federal court in Texas, invoking its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and Fifth Amendment due process rights. In August 2025, the district court denied Asbury’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the administrative action and dismissed the majority of Asbury’s constitutional claims, leaving intact only Asbury’s claim that the FTC’s administrative proceeding violated Article III of the Constitution by adjudicating private rights in a non-Article III tribunal. Asbury appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in September 2025, and although the district court had declined to enjoin the administrative proceeding, the administrative case has been delayed ever since through a series of administrative orders.

The announcement last week that the FTC was abandoning its administrative action against Asbury should not have come as a surprise. Recent remarks by current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson indicate that, given the hostility expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court to in-house administrative proceedings in decisions like SEC v. Jarkesy, the agency intends to pursue antitrust and consumer protection enforcement actions through lawsuits filed in Article III courts, rather than through administrative proceedings.

What the Contrast Signals

Viewed through this lens, the dismissal by the FTC of its administrative action against Asbury does not reflect a retreat from vigorous enforcement of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Rather, Greenway appears to be a trial run by the FTC in asserting a lawsuit in an Article III court and obtaining a consent judgment enjoining a specific dealer group from advertising in an allegedly unfair and deceptive manner, with subsequent misleading advertising in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act resulting in substantial monetary penalties.

Meanwhile, the FTC appears fully committed to enforcing Section 5 of the FTC Act to encourage a “level playing field” for all new car dealers, as set forth in the FTC’s recent guidance for dealer, presented in the form of answers to Frequently Asked Questions issued in September 2026. The FTC also has announced in recent months multi-million dollar settlements in enforcement actions filed by the FTC together with state law enforcers in Maryland and Connecticut, who unlike the FTC, typically are empowered under state law to seek money damages on behalf of in-state consumers.