After the Warning Letter, the FTC Checked the Deals

In March the FTC sent warning letters to 97 dealer groups about advertised prices.⁵ On October 8 it filed a federal complaint against one of them, Greenway Automotive in central Florida, alongside a proposed stipulated order resolving the allegations. Whether or not your group received a letter, the complaint is worth reading slowly, because it lines up the language Greenway put on its websites after the letter with the prices its stores were still quoting.

Four of the five dealerships named are Kia stores, the same franchise Marina and I operate at Atlantic Kia, so I read every paragraph. Here is what the FTC alleged, what the proposed order would require of the group for years to come, and what I'd check in a store this month. Greenway neither admits nor denies the allegations, and what I describe from the complaint is the FTC's account.

01 / The caseWhat the FTC filed

The FTC filed the complaint and a proposed stipulated order together in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, case number 6:26-cv-2337, after a 2-0 Commission vote.^1,2 It names seven companies: Greenway Automotive, Inc., Greenway Automotive Management, LLC, four Kia dealerships (Greenway Kia at the Avenues, Kia North, Kia East and Kia West) and Greenway Hyundai Orlando. The FTC treats them as a common enterprise that runs more than 35 dealerships as Greenway Auto Group.²

The central number comes from the complaint's analysis of transactions at the defendant Kia dealerships from March 1, 2023 through May 6, 2026, involving vehicles Greenway advertised on CarGurus and Cars.com. According to the complaint, more than 92 percent of those buyers paid above the advertised price, and they paid an average of at least $3,354 more, excluding required government charges and optional add-ons. The complaint names the charges that made up the difference: admin, dealer, delivery, PTA, document, reconditioning, inspection, certification and loyalty fees, plus a package of $2,295 or more on new vehicles at three of the Kia stores. An FAQ on Greenway's website said every new vehicle it sold came pre-equipped with that package. The complaint also says the admin, dealer and PTA fees were charged to more than 99 percent of Kia buyers and appeared in none of the advertised prices.²

The complaint has a second count, about scratch-off mailers promising cash prizes that the FTC says weren't real. I'm leaving it aside, since the pricing count is the one every store should measure itself against.

02 / The letterWhat happened after March 11

Greenway's letter is dated March 11, 2026 and signed by Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.⁴ It lists six practices: advertising a price that doesn't reflect all required fees, a price that reflects rebates or discounts not available to everyone, a price that ignores an additional required down payment, a price that depends on dealer financing, requiring purchases that aren't in the advertised price, and advertising vehicles that aren't available. The line that matters most says the price consumers see in advertising has to be the actual price they will pay.

According to the complaint, Greenway answered on its websites. New copy said The price you see advertised online is the real price, a banner read GREENWAY ALL-IN PRICE and ZERO HIDDEN FEES, and the FAQ for the add-on package, which had described it as permanently associated with the vehicle, now called it completely optional. The complaint then describes quotes given after the letter, including a written quote sent to a shopper on May 28 for a 2026 Kia Sportage X-Line advertised at $37,752. According to the complaint, the price including dealer fees was $39,854.40.²

The FTC's press release calls the new copy false assurances of price transparency.¹ Lawyers at Troutman Pepper Locke drew the practical lesson for their clients: a warning letter calls for an immediate, documented compliance review, and revising the marketing language doesn't take its place.⁶ I'd add that phrases like all-in and no hidden fees are claims in their own right, and the FTC tested them against the deals.

03 / The calendarSeven months, and a change of venue

Troutman Pepper Locke described Greenway as the first action taken in direct response to the March letters.⁶ It came three days after the FTC dismissed its two-year administrative case against Asbury Automotive Group. That order, dated October 5, cites the increasingly unlikely possibility of reaching a timely resolution of the merits while Asbury's constitutional challenge works its way through federal court, and says the agency remains committed to pursuing price transparency in the appropriate forum, including for automobile dealers.⁹ There was no settlement and no finding on the merits.¹⁰

Nelson Mullins reads the two cases as a sign that the FTC may favor federal court for similar enforcement actions, pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy and to Chairman Ferguson's stated preference for bringing these cases before federal judges instead of the agency's own.⁸ For dealers, the practical lesson is that the Asbury dismissal offers little reason to assume pricing enforcement has eased.

04 / The proposed orderNo refunds, and a long list of obligations

The proposed settlement provides no consumer refunds. The FTC brought the case under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, and in AMG Capital Management v. FTC the Supreme Court held in 2021 that Section 13(b) doesn't authorize the agency to obtain that kind of monetary relief.¹⁶ That doesn't eliminate separate monetary exposure under state law or other applicable authority, and Madgett Law points buyers toward state law for exactly that reason.⁷ Other dealer settlements this year included substantial monetary relief through state partners: a $3.1 million civil penalty payable to Maryland in the Lindsay case, alongside refunds to eligible consumers, and $4 million payable to Connecticut in the Manchester City Nissan case.^14,15

What the proposed Greenway order does carry is a set of obligations that would run for years once the court enters it.³ The group would have to disclose the Total Price, defined as the maximum total price including all mandatory fees and excluding only government charges, Clearly and Conspicuously, as the most prominently displayed item in any visual disclosure whenever an ad states an amount a buyer may pay. It couldn't misrepresent the costs or terms of a deal, whether a charge or product is optional, whether financing is required, or whether a charge was authorized by the customer. Third-party listing sites would be covered too. The group wouldn't be responsible for a site's display only if it gave the site the Total Price, asked for it to be shown prominently, did nothing to contradict that request and took all steps within its control.

The amber row is the one I'd show any general manager. The proposed order would let the FTC, through its own representatives, pose as consumers without identifying itself or giving notice.³ In other words, the agency can shop the stores, and the records the order would require (scripts, training materials, worksheets, signed deal documents and written communications with buyers) are what it would compare those shops against.

05 / The channelsThe website is the easiest part to fix

Greenway changed its websites, and the post-letter examples in the complaint are quotes given to shoppers. FTC staff's pricing FAQs, published September 15, list phone calls and texts with dealer staff among the touchpoints covered by the FTC Act, along with websites, third-party listings, social posts and print.¹¹ NADA called them an important step toward providing dealers with clear guidance.¹²

A review that stops at the homepage leaves out the places where the complaint found the gap. A phone quote, text reply, email and desk worksheet shouldn't introduce mandatory charges that were missing from the advertised price. Lower negotiated prices are allowed. Any increase needs to be explained by legitimate charges, such as required government fees or optional products the customer chose. Phone, text and email responses can be checked from outside the store, and reviewing the deal documents completes the picture.

06 / The workWhat I'd check this month

1. Run the FTC's comparison on your own deals.

   Start with fifty recent retail deals, spread across the stores and transaction types you want to assess. Match each deal to the relevant dated listing or offer, then explain every added charge. The complaint's 92 percent figure comes from this kind of comparison on Greenway's data, so it's the one to run first.

2. Review every mandatory charge, and every “optional” package that's on nearly every deal.

   Any charge a buyer can't decline belongs in the advertised price, however often it appears. Also look closely at supposedly optional packages that appear on nearly every deal, and confirm that buyers were offered a genuine choice. The complaint says three Greenway fees were charged to more than 99 percent of Kia buyers, and in September the New York Attorney General's settlement with two DARCARS stores rested in part on a “Sales Commission” that appeared on roughly 97 percent of retail deals.¹³

3. Shop your own store on every channel.

   Pick one vehicle and ask about it by phone, text, email and web form. Compare every answer with the listing, and keep the transcripts with the date and time.

4. Test the claims on your own website.

   If your site says all-in, no hidden fees or transparent pricing, check it against the deals from the first step. Greenway's banner is now an exhibit in a federal complaint.

5. Send the Total Price to every marketplace, in writing.

   The proposed order's third-party clause is a sensible model for any store. Supply the full price to each listing site, ask for it to be shown prominently, and keep the request and the confirmation.

6. Close the loop.

   Assign each discrepancy to an owner, document the fix, and shop that channel again.

07 / Our partWhere Argus360 fits

Argus360 handles the outside half of that work. It shops a store the way a customer would, by text, email, web form and, where state law allows, phone, and scores each interaction against the practices the FTC has flagged and the state rules that apply where the shop ran. Each finding names the specific rule and includes the underlying conversation, timestamps and supporting evidence, so your managers and counsel can review what happened. Each record receives a SHA-256 hash when it's captured, with its timestamp, channel and handling history attached, and the findings go to the dealer principal first.

It's in beta at Atlantic Kia, which Marina and I operate, and general availability is anticipated in Q4 2026.

The FTC's letter told 97 groups what it would look for. The Greenway case shows how it looks: at the deals, and at what the store says about them. I'd want to see that comparison for my own store before anyone else runs it.

The claims against Greenway are allegations by the Federal Trade Commission. Greenway neither admits nor denies them. The stipulated order was filed as a proposed order and has the force of law only once the district court approves and signs it. The Asbury matter was dismissed without a finding on the merits. Warning letters are not findings of wrongdoing. Figure 5 is invented for illustration. This article is general information and isn't legal advice; whether a specific advertisement, message or contract meets the rules that apply to your store is a question for your counsel. Argus360 is a product of AI Assist, Inc.