The FTC says the advertised price must be the price payable: what the Greenway order means for vendors and their customers
On 8 October 2026 the FTC announced a proposed stipulated order against an auto dealership group over advertised prices that were thousands of dollars below what customers paid. It is a car dealer case, but the principle, show the actual price payable and do not hide mandatory fees, is the same one the CMA is enforcing in the UK. Pricing terms and vendor-supplied advertising need checking.
The FTC’s press release of 8 October 2026 concerns Greenway Auto Group and a proposed order filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The FTC alleges advertised prices were thousands of dollars below what was charged, in over 92% of transactions. This article treats it as a read-across: the sector is different, but the pricing principle applies to any business that advertises a price and then adds charges. What follows is based on the press release only, and the order itself was not read.
What the FTC alleged
Advertised prices thousands of dollars below what was charged, an average overcharge of more than $3,350 in over 92% of transactions.
The FTC alleges that Greenway Auto Group advertised prices that were thousands of dollars below what it charged. It states that the average overcharge was more than $3,350, and that this happened in over 92% of transactions.
The FTC also alleges that rebates were advertised that only some consumers could get, and that prize mailers were deceptive. After a March 2026 FTC warning letter, it alleges the company added false price-transparency assurances to its websites.
These are allegations in a proposed stipulated order, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, with a Commission vote of 2-0. They are not findings after a trial.
What the proposed order would require
Advertised prices must prominently show the actual price payable, excluding only government-required charges, and misrepresentations about optional or required fees are barred.
The FTC says the proposed order requires that advertised prices prominently show the actual price payable, excluding only government-required charges. It bars deceptive prize mailers and misrepresentations about whether fees, charges or financing are optional or required.
The order’s core is simple: the headline price is the price. A charge that is mandatory has to be in it, and a charge that is optional has to be described as optional.
The docket number was not confirmed, and the press release does not say whether the judge has entered the order.
The headline price has to be the price payable.
Why a car dealer case matters to software and services
The same total-price logic applies to any business that advertises a price and then adds mandatory charges.
The case concerns a car dealer, and nothing in the press release is about software. The read-across is the principle: a price shown to a customer has to be the price the customer pays, apart from charges the government requires.
For a SaaS or services business, mandatory onboarding fees, platform fees, implementation charges or minimum terms that appear only at checkout are the equivalent of dealer add-ons.
The CMA’s October 2026 enforcement update makes the same point in the UK, saying businesses must show the total price throughout the purchase journey.
Warning letters and false assurances
The FTC alleges that after a warning letter the company added false price-transparency assurances to its websites.
The allegation about the March 2026 warning letter is a reminder that a regulator’s letter changes the risk. Continuing the practice, or adding reassurance that is not true, is treated as aggravating.
For a business and its vendors, the practical point is that marketing claims about pricing have to be accurate and have to match what the customer is actually charged.
A website statement that all fees are included is a representation. If the checkout adds fees, the statement is a problem.
What the press release does not tell you
The order itself and the docket number were not read, and whether it has been entered is not stated.
This article is based on the FTC’s press release. The proposed order was not read, so the exact wording of the requirements, any monetary terms and any compliance reporting should be taken from the order.
The press release does not state a docket number, and it does not say whether the court has entered the order.
It is a US federal regulator’s case against a dealer under US law. It is not a statement of UK law, and it is relevant to UK businesses only as an indication of enforcement direction and as a read-across.
What to put in the contract
Warranties on price accuracy, control of advertising copy, and indemnities for pricing claims.
The following is drafting advice for businesses that advertise through, or buy advertising and marketing services from, third-party vendors. It is not a statement of what the order requires of any other business.
- Total price warranty, requiring the vendor to warrant that advertised and quoted prices include all mandatory fees and charges, apart from any government-required charge.
- Copy and template compliance, making the vendor responsible for ensuring that advertising copy, email templates and mailers it supplies do not misrepresent prices, fees or optional charges.
- Approval rights, giving the customer the right to review and approve pricing claims before publication, and to require correction.
- Indemnity, covering regulatory penalties, redress and third-party claims arising from vendor-supplied pricing content.
- Audit and takedown, allowing the customer to audit live pricing claims and requiring prompt takedown of anything found misleading.
Questions this raises
Six questions this development tends to prompt, answered directly.
What did the FTC announce on 8 October 2026?
It announced a proposed stipulated order against Greenway Auto Group, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, over advertised prices and fees. The allegations are not findings after a trial.
What does the FTC allege?
That advertised prices were thousands of dollars below what was charged, with an average overcharge of more than $3,350 in over 92% of transactions, plus deceptive rebates and prize mailers.
What would the proposed order require?
That advertised prices prominently show the actual price payable, excluding only government-required charges, and that the company not misrepresent whether fees, charges or financing are optional or required.
Does it apply to software or SaaS businesses?
It is a car dealer case under US law. The principle, show the price payable and do not hide mandatory fees, is relevant as a read-across and matches the CMA direction in the UK.
Has the court entered the order?
The press release does not say whether the judge has entered the order, and the docket number was not confirmed.
What should vendor contracts say?
Warrant that advertised and quoted prices include all mandatory fees, make the vendor responsible for compliant copy and templates, give approval and audit rights, and include an indemnity for pricing claims.
Sources
- Federal Trade Commission, press release on settlement with an auto dealership group over price transparency, 8 October 2026.
Do your marketing vendor contracts cover price accuracy?
Eliga provides embedded commercial and technology counsel to scaling businesses. We can review your pricing terms and vendor agreements so advertised and quoted prices match what customers pay.
This article summarises a US regulatory action and is not legal advice. US law differs from the law of other jurisdictions, and the order itself was not read. Take specific advice on your own arrangements.