A right-leaning antitrust group is pressing the Federal Trade Commission to extend its deceptive-pricing enforcement beyond brick-and-mortar dealerships to the online platforms where most Americans now start shopping for a car. The Bull Moose Project sent a letter to the FTC arguing that major listing sites and vehicle ad networks allow dealers to advertise incomplete prices, leaving buyers to discover hundreds or thousands of dollars in extra fees only after they are deep into the purchase process.
The letter, first reported by the New York Post, applauds recent FTC enforcement actions against auto dealers but contends the agency is missing a central piece of the problem: the digital middlemen that display those misleading prices to millions of shoppers.
Aiden Buzzetti, founder and president of the Bull Moose Project, put it plainly:
"The main problem that we're talking about here is the fact that they haven't required any of the listing platforms... to show the full price."
The group wants the FTC to mandate "all-in pricing" on online listings, the same transparency standard regulators have already pushed in the hotel and live-event ticketing industries. The ask is straightforward: if a consumer sees a price on Cars.com, AutoTrader, or a Google ad, that number should reflect the real cost, not a teaser designed to get them in the door.
The Bull Moose Project's letter puts numbers to the problem. The average markup from the listed price to the final cost can run 7% to 8%, the letter states. On a vehicle advertised at $40,000, that gap could push the real price to roughly $43,000 before taxes and title fees, a difference that hits working families the hardest.
Buzzetti told the Post that the pattern is widespread across the biggest platforms in the industry.
"You can go through... Cars.com, AutoTrader, even Google ads... and the price at the very beginning and the price at the end are different, potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars in extra fees."
That kind of bait-and-switch is not a new complaint. But the scale has changed. Because most buyers now begin their search online, the listing platforms, not just the dealerships themselves, serve as the first point of contact. The Bull Moose Project's letter argues that deceptive practices "persist across dealer websites and the advertisements they submit to online listings platforms where the vast majority of shoppers start their car buying journeys."
The FTC has shown it is willing to act on deceptive auto pricing, up to a point. In March, the agency sent warning letters to 97 dealership groups. It also reached a settlement with Lindsay Automotive that uncovered more than $75 million in overcharges and resulted in a $3.1 million penalty. Those are real enforcement steps. But they targeted the dealerships, not the platforms that carry their ads.
The same pattern has played out in other consumer markets. The FTC recently accused StubHub of hiding fees from ticket buyers, resulting in a $10 million refund order. The principle is identical: show people the real price upfront, or face consequences.
A Cars.com spokesperson told the Post that the company monitors federal and state rules and seeks to establish policies that comply with the law. The spokesperson added that Cars.com provides guidance to both dealers and consumers.
"For more than 25 years, Cars.com has been a trusted marketplace for consumers. We closely monitor both state and federal rules regarding consumer practices and marketplace listings, and we seek to establish policies that comply with the law."
The National Automobile Dealers Association struck a similar tone. Amy Hunter Wright, vice president of public affairs, said vehicle prices "should be advertised clearly and in a manner that facilitates comparison shopping by consumers." She added that the association is "actively working with dealers, manufacturers, third-party listing sites, and others involved in auto advertising to ensure they are aware of the FTC's recent statements on advertising compliance."
Neither statement amounts to opposition. Both read more like careful positioning, an acknowledgment that the regulatory winds are shifting without conceding any wrongdoing. The Post sought comment from the FTC, Google, and AutoTrader; responses were not reported.
Consumer protection attorney Danny Karon was less diplomatic about the current state of affairs. He described the pricing gap as a deliberate tactic, not an accident.
"Right now there's deception... the FTC wants to end the deception by making the price that you see the price that you get."
Karon warned buyers directly: "Be prepared for a higher price by the time the process is done." He compared the auto industry's fee practices to a broader pattern across American commerce, calling it "sinister stuff" and adding, "These companies do it all the time just to lure you in."
The Bull Moose Project's argument carries a logic that conservatives, in particular, should find compelling. This is not a call for heavy-handed regulation of the free market. It is a call for honest pricing, a baseline condition for markets to function at all. Consumers cannot make rational choices when the price they see bears little relation to the price they pay. That is not competition. It is misdirection.
Buzzetti framed the issue in terms of consumer welfare, telling the Post that cracking down would "help benefit American families and their wallets." He also noted that these practices have likely been "going on for as long as the internet has existed."
The question now is whether the FTC will take the next step. The agency has demonstrated it can go after individual dealers. The Lindsay Automotive settlement, $75 million in overcharges, a $3.1 million penalty, shows the scale of the problem at even a single operation. But if the listing platforms continue to display incomplete prices without consequence, the enforcement amounts to plugging leaks while the pipe stays broken.
Other sectors of the economy are already facing similar scrutiny. New Jersey recently moved to ban algorithmic pricing practices at grocery stores, imposing fines of up to $20,000, a sign that lawmakers at every level are losing patience with pricing schemes that obscure what consumers actually owe.
The Bull Moose Project's letter argues that the platforms themselves are "facilitating the deceptive pricing," in Buzzetti's words. He suggested the fix need not be adversarial: "There shouldn't be any reason to have to hold these platforms accountable if they just change their standards."
That is a reasonable position. If Cars.com, AutoTrader, and Google simply required dealers to list all-in prices as a condition of advertising, the problem would shrink overnight, no new regulation required. The fact that they have not done so voluntarily tells you something about the incentives at work.
Meanwhile, consumers face a growing landscape of pricing traps that extend well beyond the car lot. From FTC warnings to wedding-industry platforms over fraud allegations to consumer agency alerts about tap-to-pay scams, the common thread is the same: businesses that profit from the gap between what customers expect to pay and what they actually pay.
For now, the burden falls on the consumer. Karon's advice, expect a higher price by the end of the process, is practical, if depressing. The letter from the Bull Moose Project puts the FTC on notice that a right-of-center watchdog group considers this a priority, not a partisan sideshow.
Buzzetti told the Post that the group has been "very happy to see the work they've done so far... but we do think that they're missing one of the key issues here." The key issue is simple: the platforms that carry the ads should be held to the same pricing standards as the dealers who place them.
Honest markets require honest prices. If the listing platforms won't deliver that on their own, the FTC should make them.