“That Wasn’t the Price I Saw Online” One area likely to receive considerable attention is the CARS Act’s new “Total Price” requirement. When a dealer advertises a specific vehicle, the advertised price generally must be the Total Price at which the dealer will sell that vehicle, subject to the exclusions permitted by law. From a litigation standpoint, the allegation practically writes itself: “The vehicle was advertised online for $32,995. When I got to the dealership, they told me it was actually $34,990 because it already had $1,995 in dealer-installed window tint, wheel locks and door edge guards.” That scenario illustrates why Total Price is likely to receive considerable attention from plaintiffs’ attorneys. Preinstalled products are likely to be a particular area of risk. Dealers commonly install items such as wheel locks, window tint, upgraded wheels, bed liners, running boards, protection packages and other equipment before a vehicle is sold. The CARS Act does not prohibit dealers from selling vehicles with dealer-installed equipment. But if the equipment is installed before the vehicle is advertised or before the dealer’s first written price communication regarding the specific vehicle, its cost generally must be included in the Total Price. The issue ultimately comes down to whether the advertised figure is a price at which the dealership was actually willing to sell that particular vehicle. Suppose a dealership advertises a vehicle for $42,000 but has already installed a $1,995 product on every vehicle of that model, and dealership personnel routinely tell customers that the product cannot be removed. In litigation, plaintiff’s counsel will likely focus on whether the customer could actually purchase that particular vehicle for the advertised $42,000 price, whether the product was already installed when the vehicle was advertised, whether its $1,995 cost was included in the advertised Total Price and whether customers genuinely had the option to decline the product. If the advertised vehicle could not actually be purchased for the advertised price, expect that advertisement to become Exhibit 1 to the complaint. Whether customers genuinely had the option to decline the product could become particularly important. Federal regulators have already shown interest in high “penetration rates” for supposedly optional products. If virtually every customer purchases the same “optional” product, a plaintiff may use that pattern to argue that customers were not being given a meaningful choice. The strongest litigation file will be the one in which the advertisement, the physical configuration of the vehicle, the customer presentation and the sale contract all tell the same story. “They Told Me the Add-On Was Required” Optional products will remain another obvious area for litigation. Service contracts, GAP waivers, theft-deterrent devices and other add-ons already generate consumer claims involving familiar allegations: the customer was told the product was required by the lender, was led to believe the vehicle could not be purchased without it, expressly declined the product but was charged for it anyway, or did not understand that the product carried an additional charge. The CARS Act requires written disclosures regarding optional add-ons and prohibits certain misrepresentations concerning their costs, benefits, limitations and other material terms. It also prohibits charging for an add-on that the customer would not benefit from. Some applications of that prohibition are straightforward. An oil-change product for an electric vehicle presents an obvious problem. So does catalytic-converter marking for a vehicle without a catalytic converter. Other situations will be less obvious. That is where litigation tends to occur. Dealers should expect discovery not only about what the customer signed, but also about how the product was presented, whether the customer was eligible for its benefits, what the dealership’s penetration rate was and whether customers genuinely could decline it. Advertising MSRP or “See Dealer for Details” Is Not Enough Dealers also should be careful about relying on MSRP. Under the CARS Act, MSRP is not a substitute for the dealer’s Total Price for a specific vehicle. Suppose the manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $38,500, but the dealership has already installed $1,485 in required accessories. An advertisement that prominently states only “MSRP $38,500” does not disclose the dealer’s Total Price. The dealership may identify MSRP separately, but it must also provide the actual Total Price. The same principle applies to familiar phrases such as “see dealer for details” or “call for price.” The CARS Act is designed to require the price itself to be communicated, not merely provide a starting point that the customer must visit the dealership to understand. This issue is particularly important because advertisements are no longer confined to a dealership’s own website. Vehicles appear on manufacturer sites, third-party platforms and syndicated listings. Dealers will need to know not merely what price they send to those platforms, but what customers actually see. In future litigation, a dealer may hear: “Our system sent the correct price.” Plaintiff’s counsel may respond: “That isn’t what your customer saw.” The Document Processing Charge Presents a Different Problem The document processing charge (DPC) illustrates how dealers sometimes must navigate overlapping state and federal requirements. Under California law, including the CARS Act, the DPC may be excluded from the vehicle’s advertised Total Price if the required disclosure language is used. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), however, has taken a more aggressive position. In March 2026, the FTC sent warning letters to 97 dealer groups stating that advertised prices must include mandatory fees and charges 20 California New Car Dealer Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==