Skip the Fine Print
- Guest Author
- May 13
- 4 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
Powersports Dealers Need to Heed The FTC’s Warning to 97 Dealers to Post “Out the Door” Prices or Face Aggressive Enforcement
By Leonard A. Bellavia, Esq.
Bellavia Cohen P.C.
On Friday, March 13, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent warning letters to ninety-seven (97) auto dealer groups about transparency in advertised pricing. The FTC warned that advertising only lower MSRP prices, or prices without all “extra” fees or costs, than the higher “out the door” price paid by consumers, is deceptive and subject to enforcement. While the FTC has targeted only auto dealer groups for now, Powersports Dealers must adapt or face similar regulatory risk.
The FTC’s primary target is advertising that lures buyers with false low prices when the dealer knows that there are mandatory “extra” fees will make the “out the door” price paid by the consumer much higher. Hiding fees in the fine print or by never disclosing them at all prevents the consumer from negotiating or comparison shopping. The FTC now warns that disclosure in the fine print alone is not enough but that dealers must include in its advertised prices all freight, set up, document and other extra costs, other than state registration fees and taxes which may still be excluded. The FTC also warns dealers can only advertise pricing discounts or rebates that are available to all customers, can only advertise cars that are actually available, and cannot condition prices on dealer financing.
Powersports dealers face unique challenges under this aggressive new FTC stance. In the auto world, OEMs publish standardized MSRP window stickers called “Monroney Labels” that include the retail price, the price of all added options to the vehicle and the shipping cost. Powersports dealers do not have the benefit of the same uniformity in MSRP, which among OEMS varies in practice on what fees are included. Worse for dealers of motorcycles, All-Terrain Vehicles, Jet Skis, snowmobiles and other vehicles that price well below autos is that the “extra” fees can amount to a double-digit markup above MSRP. Inclusion of these fees in advertised pricing will cause competitive disadvantage to dealers, as well as damper demand, in the near term as this pricing change is adopted.
Powersports dealers will also have operational challenges to ensure compliance with the new FTC policy. The FTC has cautioned that adding charges to the advertised price later in the transaction, typically when signing the documents, can lead to substantial penalties and injunctive relief. Dealers will therefore need to be acutely aware of the prices advertised online for their vehicles and products, including all advertising done by third-party services. Dealers will also need to incorporate pricing transparency into their sales policies, practices and documents to make sure that the advertised price the consumer saw is the price received by the consumer, or document clearly the basis for any modifications or extra services.
NPDA believes a solution must start at the manufacturer level. The dealer has no control over the manufacturer pricing, yet it bears the burden of compliance. NPDA advocates for OEMs to create a uniform “all-in” MSRP standard that includes all freight, destination, assembly, inspection, and delivery-related fees, and a model to reimburse dealers from these fees. This would eliminate operational risk for dealers and provide a uniform MSRP for consumers that would eliminate disparity in price advertising. Until such time, Powersports dealers must be vigilant in supervising their advertising, sales and operations processes to ensure compliance with the FTC’s new pricing transparency requirements, and keep records to prove so if investigated.
The FTC is not targeting powersports or auto dealers in isolation but has cracked down on pricing practices across others industries, through enforcement actions against Ticketmaster, Hilton, and Marriott. The 97 warning letters sent by the FTC identify six types of illegal and deceptive pricing and advertising in the dealer industry, including:
advertising of prices that do not reflect all required fees;
advertising a price that reflects rebates or discounts that are not available to all customers;
advertising a price that fails to take into account the amount of additional down payment required;
conditioning the advertised price on consumers using dealer financing;
requiring consumers to buy additional items not reflected in the advertised price; and
advertising unavailable or non-existent vehicles.
These warnings follow recent success the FTC has had prosecuting two large dealer groups in enforcement actions for alleged deceptive and false advertising practices.
In January 2024, the FTC filed a complaint against Manchester City Nissan in Connecticut, alleging that it advertised false low prices for certified used vehicles, then double-charged “junk fees” certifications and inspections it did not perform or tacked on “Add on” charges that were unauthorized by stating they were required when they were not. In September 2025, Chase Nissan’s two sales managers settled with the FTC for prohibition on all such deceptive practices in the future and a $4.8 million penalty if they violated the prohibition.
On April 27, 2026, the FTC settled a similar enforcement action against the Lindsay Management Company LLC (“Lindsay”) for $75 million in refunds to customers and a $3.1 million civil penalty. Lindsay operates Chevrolet, Ford and Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram dealerships in Maryland and Virginia. In the complaint, the FTC alleges Lindsay did not honor advertised prices but tacked on on thousands of dollars of additional fees for unwanted add-ons of service coverage or other warranties which customers were told were required, as well as additional fees for not financing through the dealer. The FTC further alleged that that a survey showed that 68% of Lindsay’s customers paid for an “add -on” they did not want or were falsely told were required.
Powersports dealers and auto dealers can expect enforcement actions like this to continue if adaptions are not made. In its warning letters, the FTC explained that transparent pricing where advertised price must be “all in” and match the “out the door” price is now a key enforcement priority. The FTC further stated it would “continue to monitor the marketplace and take additional action as warranted.”
These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to seek professional counsel.