FTC targets ads for unavailable vehicles

The FTC has warned 97 auto dealership groups that advertising vehicles that are not actually available (or not available at the advertised terms) is a deceptive “bait‑and‑switch” practice that can violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and the CARS Rule.

What the FTC just did

• On March 13, 2026, the FTC announced it sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups nationwide about deceptive pricing and availability practices in vehicle ads.

• The letters do not allege specific violations but put dealers on notice that certain common advertising practices, including promoting unavailable vehicles, may be unlawful and can lead to enforcement, civil penalties, and orders.

“Unavailable vehicle” advertising the FTC is targeting

The warning letters explicitly call out “advertising unavailable or nonexistent vehicles” as an example of an illegal pricing practice.

Key scenarios the FTC highlights:

• Ads for specific vehicles or prices when the vehicle is not actually in stock or cannot be purchased at the advertised terms.

• Online listings that remain live after a vehicle is sold, where the low price functions as a lead‑generation hook rather than a real offer.

• Promotions that tout an attractive price on a vehicle that is “technically” available but only with undisclosed mandatory add‑ons, fees, or financing conditions, effectively making the advertised configuration unavailable.

The FTC links these practices to classic bait‑and‑switch: attracting consumers with a low‑priced vehicle that cannot actually be purchased as advertised, then steering them to higher‑priced options.

How this ties to “total price” and the CARS Rule

The same letters focus heavily on “total price” advertising obligations under the FTC’s CARS Rule and Section 5:

Dealers must ensure that:

• The advertised price includes every mandatory fee or dealer‑imposed charge that all consumers must pay (other than taxes and government fees).

• Advertised prices are not conditioned on rebates or discounts that are not available to all consumers (for example, requiring military, college grad, or finance‑company‑specific rebates without clear, prominent disclosure).

• Prices are not conditioned on using dealer financing unless that condition is clearly, prominently, and closely tied to the price disclosure.

• Consumers are not required to buy add‑ons that are not incorporated into the advertised price.

From the FTC’s perspective, advertising a vehicle at a low price that omits unavoidable fees or mandatory add‑ons is functionally similar to advertising a vehicle that is not truly available at that price.

Practical implications for dealers

For compliance and risk management, dealerships should:

• Implement tight processes to remove or update online and third‑party listings promptly when vehicles are sold or terms change.

• Align DMS/inventory data with website, third‑party marketplaces, and paid ads so only actually available units, trims, and prices are promoted.

• Require legal or compliance review of ad templates and feeds to ensure total‑price compliance and to avoid references to vehicles or prices that are not genuinely obtainable.

• Treat the warning letters as a signal of an enforcement priority: the FTC has now clearly articulated that “advertising unavailable or nonexistent vehicles” is squarely in its crosshairs.