Federal Trade Commission • Florida Statutes § 501.976
Dealer Junk Fees Are Illegal.
They Always Have Been.
FTC Warns 97 Dealer Groups — Florida Law Goes Further
Florida auto fraud attorneys fighting dealer junk fees statewide — Sue Your Dealer, A Law Firm
Florida dealer fees and FDUTPA violations have been a fixture of consumer protection litigation in this state for years. On March 13, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups across the country, finally drawing federal attention to practices Florida law has prohibited for decades. The message was direct: advertised prices must be the total price a consumer will pay, mandatory fees included, full stop. The letters flagged advertising prices that exclude required fees, mandatory add-ons buried in the contract, prices conditioned on dealer financing, and vehicles listed at prices that vanish by the time you sit down to sign.
If you follow consumer protection law at all, none of that should surprise you. Florida has had statutes on the books for decades doing exactly this. The FTC action isn’t new law it’s the federal government reminding an industry that thinks it’s been operating in a gray area that the gray area never existed. Florida consumers, in particular, have always had stronger protections than most. The problem isn’t a lack of law. It’s a lack of enforcement and a lack of consumers who know their rights.
Our firm has handled thousands of these cases for Florida consumers. Here is what you need to know.
What the FTC Actually Said and Why It Matters
The FTC warned 97 auto groups that advertised prices must be the total price including all mandatory fees that consumers will be required to pay. The letters called out a range of tactics the agency considers deceptive: advertising a price that doesn’t reflect all required fees, advertising a price that reflects rebates or discounts not available to all consumers, conditioning the advertised price on consumers using dealer financing, and requiring consumers to buy additional items not reflected in the advertised price.
The FTC also emphasized a number of recent enforcement actions against dealer groups, suggesting the agency will continue to pursue deceptive conduct in the auto industry on a case-by-case basis. Pending cases against Lindsay Chevrolet, Leader Automotive Group, and Asbury Automotive Group were specifically cited.
Here is the thing about the FTC action: it prohibits conduct under Section 5 of the FTC Act. That’s a federal consumer protection floor. Florida’s own statute the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA has its own, independently enforceable set of dealer-specific rules that in several respects go further than what the FTC addressed. Florida consumers don’t have to wait for a federal agency to send warning letters. They can go to court themselves, right now, and they can recover attorney’s fees when they win.
Florida Already Has This Covered in Statute
Florida Statute § 501.976 is the section of FDUTPA that applies specifically to motor vehicle dealers and gives rise to most Florida dealer fees FDUTPA claims. It spells out, in plain language, what a dealer is and is not allowed to do when selling or leasing a vehicle to a consumer. Three subsections are particularly relevant right now given the FTC’s renewed focus on dealer pricing practices.
Advertising a vehicle at a price that cannot actually be honored.
Under subsection 11 — one of the most commonly overlooked Florida dealer fees FDUTPA provisions — it is an unfair or deceptive act for a dealer to advertise a vehicle at a specific price and then refuse to sell it at that price to any consumer who meets the stated conditions. This is the statutory backbone behind what the FTC is now flagging federally: bait-and-switch pricing, teaser rates that disappear at the Finance & Insurance desk, and “internet prices” that only apply if you finance through the dealer. If you saw a price and couldn’t buy the car at that price that’s a violation of Florida law.
Charging fees that were not disclosed and agreed to prior to the sale.
Subsection 16 is the backbone of most Florida dealer fees FDUTPA claims our firm handles. It prohibits dealers from charging consumers any fee by any name that was not clearly disclosed and agreed upon before the transaction was finalized. This covers the full menu of dealer-invented charges: market adjustment fees, dealer prep fees, document preparation fees, nitrogen tire fills, paint protection packages, GPS tracking devices, and all the other line items that appear on the contract but were never mentioned during negotiation. The FTC is focused on fees hidden in advertised prices. Florida’s statute covers fees hidden in the contract itself.
The most litigated dealer fee statute in Florida and one where the law leaves no wiggle room.
Subsection 18 is the most litigated Florida dealer fees FDUTPA statute in the state. It requires that any document containing a line item for a predelivery service charge commonly labeled “dealer fee,” “pre-delivery inspection,” “doc fee,” or similar must include the following verbatim disclosure directly associated with that charge:
The statute requires this disclosure on all documents that include the line item not one document, not the main contract, not a page the consumer might flip to later. Every document. Failing to include it is a per se FDUTPA violation, meaning the violation is complete the moment the fee is charged without the disclosure. There is no inquiry into whether the consumer noticed, read, or cared. It is illegal, period.
What Courts Have Said: A Recent Broward County Court Order
The law on paper is one thing. What courts actually do with it is another. A recent Broward County court order denying a dealer’s motion for summary judgment addressed, one by one, every argument dealers typically raise to avoid liability in Florida dealer fees FDUTPA cases under § 501.976(18). The order is instructive because it’s a blueprint for what the statute actually requires and what doesn’t get dealers off the hook.
Common Dealer Tactics and Why Courts Reject Them
What this shows: Line items (8) and (9) “ELECT FILING” ($132.95) and “3RD PARTY TAG AGENCY / Dealer Fee” ($741.00) appear as charges on the consumer-facing contract. This is the document the consumer signs. The required statutory disclosure under Fla. Stat. § 501.976(18) which must appear on this document, adjacent to these line items is absent. That omission alone constitutes a per se FDUTPA violation regardless of whether the fee itself is otherwise permissible.
What this shows: A separate document in the same transaction the lease order contains line (F): “Pre-delivery Service Charge” marked “N/A,” alongside the required disclosure in a footnote below. The dealer argued this satisfied the statute because the disclosure appeared somewhere in the paperwork. The court rejected that argument. The disclosure appeared on a document where the pre-delivery service fee was marked inapplicable while the actual fees were charged on the contract shown in Exhibit A above, where no disclosure appeared. The statute requires the disclosure on all documents containing the line item. Placing it somewhere else does not comply.
|
⚠ Tactic: “The disclosure appeared somewhere else in the paperwork.”
The dealer argued that placing the required disclosure on the lease order a different document from the lease agreement where the fees actually appeared was sufficient. The court said no. The statute says all documents. Burying the disclosure in a separate form, or placing it somewhere on the page that doesn’t tie it to the specific fees being charged, does not comply. The disclosure must appear with the line item, on every document that carries that line item. The court cited the statute’s use of the word “all” as plain, unambiguous, and non-negotiable. |
|
⚠ Tactic: “We substantially complied with the statute.”
This is among the most common dealer defenses, and the court rejected it flatly. Florida law does not permit courts to read a “substantial compliance” exception into a statute that doesn’t contain one. Section 501.976(18) contains no substantial compliance provision. The Legislature could have written one it didn’t. Courts cannot add language that isn’t there. As the court noted, allowing substantial compliance would let unscrupulous dealers bury statutory disclosures in a stack of documents and leave consumers financially harmed with no recourse. |
|
⚠ Tactic: “The consumer knew what they were paying and signed the contract.”
The voluntary payment defense essentially arguing that a consumer who paid can’t complain fails under FDUTPA because the statute uses an objective standard, not a subjective one. It doesn’t matter whether the consumer read the contract carefully, asked questions, or even knew the fee existed. A party asserting a FDUTPA deceptive trade practice claim does not need to show actual reliance on the omission at issue. The dealer violated the law by charging the fee without the disclosure. The consumer’s state of mind is irrelevant. |
|
⚠ Tactic: “It was a programming error. We didn’t mean to do it.”
The dealer raised a “mapping error” defense, claiming a software glitch prevented the disclosure from appearing on the lease. The court was not moved. To prevail on a bona fide error defense under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, a dealer must show it had procedures in place to prevent the error and produce evidence that the error actually occurred. The dealer’s own witnesses admitted they had no written training policies, no compliance procedures for lease form review, and no personal knowledge that any mapping error occurred. The defense failed as a matter of law. Notably, the court found evidence of prior notice sufficient to establish that the dealer knew it had no legal right to collect these fees without the required disclosure. |
How a FDUTPA Violation Becomes an FCCPA Violation
Florida has its own consumer collection statute independent of any federal law: the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or FCCPA, codified at Fla. Stat. § 559.72. Unlike many collection statutes that apply only to third-party debt collectors, the FCCPA applies to the original creditor as well. That includes a dealership collecting fees directly from the consumer at the point of sale.
Section 559.72(9) of the FCCPA prohibits a person from collecting a debt or asserting the existence of a legal right to collect a debt when that person knows the debt is not legitimate or knows the right does not exist.
The connection to a Florida dealer fees FDUTPA violation is direct. Here’s how it works: when a dealer charges a predelivery service fee without the required § 501.976(18) disclosure, the fee itself is illegal a per se FDUTPA violation. The moment the dealer collects that illegal fee, or demands that the consumer pay it as a condition of the transaction, they have asserted a legal right that does not exist. That’s the FCCPA violation. The court confirmed this precisely, finding that a dealer violates the FCCPA by knowingly charging and collecting dealer fees in violation of § 501.976(18).
The FCCPA provides for statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney’s fees. It creates an independent cause of action separate from and in addition to the FDUTPA claim. That means a consumer whose dealer violated § 501.976(18) may have two separate, reinforcing legal claims arising from the same conduct. Bringing both FDUTPA and FCCPA claims is standard practice in our firm’s dealer fee cases and is precisely what was litigated in that case.
The practical impact for Florida dealer fees FDUTPA and FCCPA claims: dealers who charge undisclosed or improperly disclosed fees don’t just face a fine. They face a lawsuit, statutory damages, and an obligation to pay the consumer’s attorneys fees if the consumer wins which is what makes these cases economically viable for consumers regardless of the dollar amount of the fee.
The FTC Action: Welcome, But Not Revolutionary
The FTC Act has prohibited unfair and deceptive business practices since 1914. Section 5 didn’t need to be updated, clarified, or expanded for it to apply to a car dealer who advertises $32,000 and charges $34,800. Florida dealer fees FDUTPA enforcement has operated on the same principle at the state level for just as long. That conduct was illegal before the internet existed, before social media advertising existed, and before anyone coined the term “dealer fee.” The March 2026 letters didn’t create new law. They told 97 dealer groups that the Commission noticed what they were doing and would like them to stop.
Florida built on the same foundation with dealer-specific teeth. Where Section 5 requires a government agency to bring an action on consumers’ behalf, § 501.976(16) of FDUTPA gives individual Florida consumers the right to sue on their own. The state also made the obligations concrete: specific fees, specific disclosure language, specific documents.
When the internet changed how dealers reach consumers, the Florida AG’s Economic Crime Division wrote to the Florida Automobile Dealers Association in 2004 to explain how those existing obligations applied to the new reality. Twenty years later, a different AG sent essentially the same letter to the same organization, this time addressing Facebook ads and third-party listing platforms. The FTC followed fourteen months after that. Three separate enforcement bodies, spanning two decades, delivering the same message to the same industry. The argument that dealers lacked notice stopped being credible a long time ago.
The FTC action does carry real weight in one respect. The letters called out pending enforcement cases against Lindsay Chevrolet, Leader Automotive Group, and Asbury Automotive Group by name. Publishing those names alongside a warning to 97 other groups is not a coincidence. It’s a signal that the agency is building a record and intends to use it. Dealers who have been betting that federal attention would stay diffuse and theoretical are reading those letters a lot more carefully than they’re letting on publicly.
For Florida consumers, though, the FTC enforcement track is largely beside the point. Section 5 of the FTC Act doesn’t give you the right to sue. If the FTC eventually reaches a settlement with a dealer, the odds that money reaches you specifically are low. Federal enforcement moves slowly, the process is not transparent to affected consumers, and the remedies are designed to punish the company rather than compensate the individual.
FDUTPA works the other way. The statute gives you a direct cause of action. You file the lawsuit. You recover your actual damages. You recover your attorney’s fees if you win. You don’t need to wait for a government agency to get around to your dealer, and you don’t need enough victims to justify a class action. The violation either happened or it didn’t, and if it did, you can pursue it now.
The Florida Attorney General Said the Same Thing in 2024
When the FTC sent its warning letters to 97 dealer groups in March 2026, industry press covered it as a significant development. But Florida dealer fees FDUTPA enforcement had already been the subject of a direct written warning from the Florida Office of the Attorney General more than two years earlier.
On January 9, 2024, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Associate Deputy Attorney General for Enforcement, wrote directly to the President of the Florida Automobile Dealers Association about the same Florida dealer fees FDUTPA obligations that dealers were still ignoring. The letter addressed the same practices the FTC flagged in 2026: advertised prices that exclude mandatory fees, asterisked disclaimers that bury add-on charges, and prices that require a consumer to scroll or navigate to another page before learning what they will actually pay. The OAG was explicit: these practices are not just bad form they are unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of FDUTPA.
The letter also attached a 2004 letter from Mary Leontakianakos, then Director of Economic Crimes, making the same argument about § 501.976(16) meaning this is a position the state has communicated to the dealer industry for over two decades. There is no plausible argument that Florida dealers were unaware of these obligations. The OAG told their trade association directly, twice, twenty years apart. The FTC has now done the same thing federally.
“Failure to comply with the advertising requirements of section 501.976(16), Fla. Stat., is specifically identified as an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Therefore, omitting add-on fees or required charges in an advertised price not only violates section 501.976(16) but is also a misleading and deceptive practice under FDUTPA.”
Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Associate Deputy Attorney General for Enforcement, State of Florida
The full letter is reproduced below. It is a public government document. Read it and judge for yourself whether there is any reasonable argument that the industry lacked notice.
Twenty years separate these two letters, and the Florida dealer fees FDUTPA obligations they describe have not changed. The AG’s position has not changed. What has changed is the internet and with it, the scale at which dealers can advertise misleading prices to consumers who have no idea what they’re actually going to pay when they walk into the dealership. For Florida consumers, that gap between the advertised price and the out-the-door price is not a negotiating quirk. It is a FDUTPA violation and it has been since long before any of us started shopping for cars online.
What Our Firm Has Seen and Done
Our firm has successfully resolved thousands of Florida dealer fees FDUTPA claims for consumers across the state. These are not high-profile class actions or headline cases. They are the everyday consumer someone who financed a car, signed a contract in a hurry under pressure, and drove home without realizing the document they signed included fees that the law required to be disclosed but weren’t. The amounts per case aren’t always large. But the law provides for attorney’s fees, which means consumers can pursue these claims without paying anything out of pocket when we take the case.
The patterns we see repeatedly in Florida dealer fees FDUTPA cases: fees labeled in ways designed to avoid the § 501.976(18) disclosure requirement “administrative fee,” “third-party tag agency fee,” “electronic filing,” “dealer prep” charged on the main contract without the required statutory disclosure appearing on that document. In many of these cases, the dealer placed the disclosure somewhere in the paperwork, but not on the document that actually contained the fee line item. Under the court’s reasoning and the plain language of the statute, that’s a violation.
We also see the full range of § 501.976(16) Florida dealer fees FDUTPA violations: fees that appear at signing that were never part of the agreed price, add-on products that were represented as mandatory when they were optional, and financing conditions attached to advertised prices that were never disclosed during the negotiation. These are the same practices the FTC is now warning dealers about federally but Florida consumers have had the right to challenge them in state court for years.
Find Out If You Have a Claim at No Cost
Our firm has handled thousands of FDUTPA dealer fee claims for Florida consumers. The evaluation is free and there is no obligation. You pay nothing unless we recover for you.
Submit a Free Case Evaluation →
Free evaluation only. Submission does not create an attorney-client relationship. We do not provide free consultations or legal advice.
How to Read Your Own Contract
You don’t need a lawyer to do a first pass on your paperwork. Florida dealer fees FDUTPA violations often hide in plain sight once you know what to look for. These are the specific things that matter. Here’s what to check if you purchased or leased a vehicle from a Florida dealer in recent years.
|
►
Find every fee line item on your contract. These are the charges most likely to support a Florida dealer fees FDUTPA claim. Look for anything labeled dealer fee, pre-delivery inspection, administrative fee, electronic filing, third-party tag agency fee, dealer prep, or similar. Write down the exact label and the amount. |
|
►
Look for the statutory disclosure directly associated with that fee. It should read: “This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing documents related to the sale.” It must appear on the same document as the fee and ideally adjacent to it. |
|
►
Compare the price you paid to the price you were shown. If you saw a price online or on the lot and paid more at signing beyond taxes and government fees document the difference. Screenshots of online listings with dates are useful evidence. |
|
►
Note any add-ons you didn’t agree to. Products like paint sealant, tire protection, GAP insurance, or GPS tracking that appeared on your final contract but were not discussed or agreed upon during negotiation may be independently actionable. |
|
►
Gather your documents before they expire. FDUTPA claims are subject to a statute of limitations. If you believe you were charged improper fees, do not wait to have your paperwork reviewed. Claims arising from older transactions may already be time-barred. |
Before You Call a Lawyer, Try This First
Florida law gives you a tool that most consumers never use: the pre-suit demand letter. Under Fla. Stat. § 501.98, before any lawsuit can be filed against a Florida car dealer under FDUTPA, a written demand letter must be sent to the dealership at least 30 days in advance. This is a legal requirement — but it is also an opportunity. Many dealers, when faced with a specific, documented demand from a consumer who clearly knows their rights, will simply cut a check rather than deal with the alternative.
You do not need an attorney to send it. The letter needs to identify you and the dealer, describe what happened and what fee was improperly charged, state the dollar amount you are owed, and give the dealer 30 days to respond. Send it certified mail, keep the receipt, and attach copies of your contract. That’s it.
If the dealer pays within 30 days, plus a statutory surcharge of the lesser of $500 or 10% of what you claimed, the matter is resolved and you never needed a lawyer. If they ignore it or push back, that’s when the demand letter becomes the foundation of a FDUTPA lawsuit — and at that point, attorney’s fees are on the table for you.
|
►
Your name, address, and phone number — and the dealer’s full legal name and address |
|
►
The date of the transaction and the vehicle — year, make, model, and VIN |
|
►
Exactly what was wrong — name the fee, the amount, and why it was improperly charged or not disclosed |
|
►
A specific dollar amount — itemized by fee, with a total |
|
►
A 30-day deadline — and a statement that you will pursue legal action if not resolved |
|
►
Copies of your contract and any supporting documents — sent certified mail, return receipt requested |
For a full breakdown of the statute, sample letter language, and the three scenarios that can follow, see our page: Suing a Car Dealer in Florida: 5 Critical Steps Before You File.
The Bottom Line
The FTC warning is a meaningful signal that federal regulators are paying attention to the auto industry. But when it comes to Florida dealer fees FDUTPA violations, the more important signal came years ago from the Florida Legislature, when it enacted § 501.976, and from courts that have enforced it without exception.
Florida dealer fees FDUTPA enforcement is not new and dealers have known it. Dealers in this state have known for years what the law requires. Many have complied. Many haven’t. And for those who haven’t, the consequence isn’t a warning letter. It’s a lawsuit, a judgment, and attorney’s fees. Our firm has been pursuing those consequences on behalf of Florida consumers for years, and we intend to keep doing so.
If you purchased or leased a vehicle from a Florida dealer and believe you were charged fees that were not properly disclosed, submit your information for a free evaluation. Our team will review your documents and tell you honestly whether we believe you have a viable claim. There is no cost to submit, no obligation to proceed, and you will not owe us anything unless we recover for you.
Submit a Free Case Evaluation Today
Our firm has resolved thousands of FDUTPA and FCCPA dealer fee claims for consumers across Florida. Tell us what happened and we’ll tell you whether we can help.
Free evaluation only. No consultations provided. Submission does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results in prior matters do not guarantee future outcomes.