FTC Sues Greenway Auto Group Over Advertised Car Prices

The Federal Trade Commission sued Greenway Auto Group on October 8, 2026, alleging the Florida dealership chain advertised cars at prices it would not honor and overcharged buyers in over 92% of transactions, on average by more than $3,350 over the advertised price. The agency filed a proposed settlement the same day, and no judge has signed it.

Information last verified on October 12, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The complaint was filed on October 8, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:26-cv-02337. A proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction was filed the same day as an exhibit, but the copy on the public record has been executed by the parties only and carries no judicial signature, with a blank case number and a blank "SO ORDERED" date. As of October 12, 2026 we could not confirm that any judge has entered it, so none of its terms bind the dealerships yet.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses a federal FTC Act enforcement action filed in the Middle District of Florida against Florida-based dealership entities. It touches on Florida's lemon law and on state deceptive trade practices statutes only to explain how they differ from this case, and it does not analyze any state-law claim or the law of any other state. For vehicle defect remedies, see our guide to US lemon laws.

What Happened

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint for permanent injunction against Greenway Auto Group on October 8, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, docketed as Case No. 6:26-cv-02337. The 43-page complaint names seven defendants: Greenway Automotive, Inc., Greenway Automotive Management, LLC, and five dealership corporations doing business as Greenway Kia at the Avenues, Greenway Kia North, Greenway Kia East, Greenway Kia West, and Greenway Hyundai Orlando.

The complaint pleads two counts, both under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Count I alleges misrepresentation regarding advertised prices. Count II alleges misrepresentation that consumers have won a specific prize.

On the pricing count, the FTC describes five mechanisms it says pushed the final number above the advertised one: dealer-imposed fees, conditional rebates and discounts available only to some buyers, mandatory add-ons presented as unremovable, inflated government charges such as title, license and registration, and price increases with no explanation at all. The complaint states the cumulative effect plainly:

"As a result of these unlawful practices, Defendants overcharge consumers in over 92% of transactions, on average by more than $3,350 over the advertised price."

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, para. 2 (filed Oct. 8, 2026).

A separate paragraph puts a dataset behind that figure. The FTC says it analyzed Greenway transactions at the defendant Kia dealerships from March 1, 2023 through May 6, 2026, limited to vehicles the chain had advertised on the third-party listing sites CarGurus.com and Cars.com. Of those buyers, over 92% paid more than the advertised price, and they paid "an average of at least $3,354 more," a figure the complaint says excludes required government charges and optional add-ons (Compl. para. 27). The complaint adds that this understates the gap, because the calculation subtracts conditional rebates that some buyers did receive, such as servicemember rebates.

The complaint also alleges conduct around the transaction itself rather than the price tag. It says that in many cases the dealerships refused to give buyers copies of their paperwork until after the sale closed, and in some cases not at all, and that when buyers tried to walk out the dealerships kept them there by withholding the keys to their trade-in vehicles, leaving paperwork unfinished, or refusing to return deposits and down payments (Compl. para. 3).

The prize mailers

Count II concerns a different practice. The FTC alleges Greenway sent mailers to Florida consumers representing that the recipient had won a pictured prize, including $2,500 in instant cash, collectable at a dealership. According to the complaint, the prizes shown on the fliers are "not real, but just another ploy to get consumers into the dealership where Defendants attempt to sell them cars" (Compl. para. 74). The complaint also alleges that consumers who presented a flier bearing the winning numbers at the dealership it directed them to did not receive the advertised prize (Compl. para. 78).

The March 2026 warning letter

The FTC says it put the chain on notice months before suing. On March 11, 2026 the agency sent Greenway Auto Group a warning letter about its advertising, stating that the FTC is committed to "ensuring that the price consumers see in advertising is the actual price they will pay (aside from required government charges, like taxes)," and that it is illegal to advertise a price that does not reflect all required fees, to advertise a price reflecting rebates or discounts not available to all consumers, to condition an advertised price on the buyer using dealer financing, or to require buyers to purchase additional items not reflected in the advertised price (Compl. para. 83).

The complaint alleges what happened next is the aggravating fact. Rather than stop, it says, the defendants "added numerous false assurances of price transparency to their websites," including the statement "The price you see advertised online is the real price" (Compl. para. 84).

What the Proposed Order Would Require

The FTC filed a proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction alongside the complaint. It is important to be precise about its standing. The copy in the public record has been executed by the parties but carries no judicial signature. Its caption shows "Case No." followed by a blank, and its final page reads "SO ORDERED this ___ day of _, 202" above an empty line captioned "UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE." It was docketed as Document 2-1, an attachment to a separate filing rather than as a free-standing order of the court. The FTC's own press release states the operative rule: "Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge." As of October 12, 2026, we could not confirm entry.

If entered as filed, the order would run in seven parts. Section I would permanently restrain the defendants from misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the costs or terms of purchasing, financing or leasing a vehicle; the availability of vehicles at an advertised price; whether charges, fees, taxes, products or services are optional or required; whether any type of or source for financing is required; whether charges, products or services are authorized by consumers; the amount of any charge, fee or tax; the material terms of any prize, sweepstakes, giveaway or other incentive, including whether a consumer has won one and its nature, value or amount; and any other fact material to consumers.

Section II is the disclosure engine. It would bar the defendants from representing any amount a consumer may pay for a vehicle "without disclosing the Total Price, Clearly and Conspicuously, as the most prominently displayed item in any visual disclosure." The section would also include a third-party safe harbor: where the defendants themselves disclosed the Total Price most prominently, a third-party listing site's own advertising would not put them in violation, provided they had given that site the Total Price, requested that it display the Total Price most prominently, done nothing to contradict, mitigate or act inconsistently with that request or the order's other provisions, and taken all steps within their control to ensure the site complied.

The remaining sections cover order acknowledgments, compliance reporting, recordkeeping, compliance monitoring, and retention of jurisdiction. The FTC's release describes no monetary relief, and the proposed order carries no monetary judgment section. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize staff to file the complaint and the proposed order.

What the Law Actually Says

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act is deliberately general. It declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful. The Commission can pursue a Section 5 violation through its own administrative process or, as here, bring a civil action in federal district court for injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b), which is the authority this complaint invokes (Compl. para. 1). Consumers have no private claim under the FTC Act; only the Commission can enforce it. There is no dealer-specific element to plead and no state registration question: the agency's theory is that an advertised price the seller will not honor is a deceptive representation about a material fact, and that a mailer saying you have won a prize you have not won is a second one.

That matters for how readers should understand the case, because deceptive pricing is a different body of law from the one most car buyers have heard of. A lemon law is a warranty statute. It addresses a vehicle that keeps failing after purchase, and its remedy is repurchase or replacement once the warrantor has had a statutorily defined chance to fix the defect. It says nothing about what the sticker said. Florida's version, which we cover in detail in how Florida's lemon law works, presumes a reasonable number of attempts has passed either after three repairs of the same nonconformity plus a final manufacturer attempt or after the vehicle has been out of service for 30 cumulative days, and it then requires the manufacturer to repurchase or replace (Fla. Stat. 681.103, 681.104). It runs against manufacturers over defects rather than against dealerships over advertising, and section 681.113 provides that the chapter generally imposes no liability on a dealer. Some states' separate used-vehicle lemon laws do run against dealers, so the obligor depends on the state.

A pricing or fee dispute travels on other routes: the FTC Act when a federal regulator brings it, state unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes, and state advertising rules. A buyer who paid thousands over an advertised price generally has no lemon law claim at all, which is one reason the distinction is worth keeping straight before anyone decides what to do next. Our general walkthrough of how consumers pursue a refund after a deceptive transaction, including the scam scenarios where those routes come up most often, is at how to get money back after a scam.

Count II sits closer to the law we cover under prize and sweepstakes mailers. The recurring pattern there is a notice of winnings that exists to produce a visit, a call or a payment rather than a prize, and the deception is complete when the representation is made, whether or not the recipient loses money.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Two features of this filing are worth noting, and neither depends on how the case resolves.

The first is the role of the March 11, 2026 warning letter. The FTC did not simply allege deception; it alleged deception that continued after the agency had identified the specific practices in writing, and it alleged that the response was to add transparency claims to the websites rather than change the pricing. Read against the complaint's own structure, the letter does double work: it supplies notice, and it converts the later website assurances into additional alleged misrepresentations. That is a sequencing pattern worth recognizing in agency practice generally.

The second is the shape of Section II of the proposed order. Its operative requirement is not "do not lie about fees" but "make the Total Price the most prominently displayed item." That is a design requirement rather than a prohibition, and the third-party safe harbor shows why the drafters reached for it: a dealership does not control how CarGurus or Cars.com renders a listing, so the order would allocate responsibility by conduct the dealership can actually perform, namely supplying the Total Price, asking for it to be displayed, and not undercutting the request. Whether that approach travels beyond this defendant is not something we can say from this record.

What we will not do is estimate how the court will handle the proposed order, or treat the complaint's allegations as established facts. A complaint is one party's pleading. The defendants have not admitted the allegations, and the figures in it are the FTC's analysis of its own dataset, not findings by a court.

How This Affects You

Nothing in this filing changes anyone's rights today, and no one should read it as a route to a payment. The proposed order contains no consumer redress and no monetary judgment, so there is no fund and no claims process attached to it.

As general information rather than advice about any particular purchase: the gap this case is about is the gap between an advertised price and a final out-the-door figure, and the documents that show it are the advertisement and the buyer's order or retail installment contract. Buyers who want to compare the two generally need both, which is why the complaint's allegation about withheld paperwork matters beyond this chain. Consumers can report dealer advertising and fee complaints to the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov and to their own state attorney general, both of which are free. Whether any individual transaction involved conduct a court would find unlawful depends on facts a lawyer licensed in that state would need to review.

What Happens Next

As of October 12, 2026 the FTC's own case page for the matter lists its status as pending and posts two filings, both dated October 8, 2026: the complaint and the proposed stipulated order. We could not reach the court's own docket to confirm what else it holds, so we do not state its contents here. The next event on the public record is the district judge's decision whether to enter the order. Until entry, the order imposes nothing, and the complaint's counts remain unadjudicated allegations.

Entry of the order would convert this into a completed enforcement event, and would start the compliance reporting, recordkeeping and monitoring obligations in Sections IV through VI. If the court declines to enter it, or enters a modified version, the operative terms would change. We are tracking the docket and will update this article when either occurs.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal FTC Act enforcement action filed in the Middle District of Florida and reflects sources verified on October 12, 2026. The allegations described are from a complaint and have not been proven; the proposed order described has not been entered. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• Our guide to US lemon laws
• How Florida's lemon law works
• Prize and sweepstakes mailers
• Scam and fraud laws

---

Last updated: 2026-10-12. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-12.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the court approved the FTC's settlement with Greenway?

Not as far as the public record shows. The stipulated order filed on October 8, 2026 is unsigned, with a blank case number and a blank 'SO ORDERED' date. The FTC's release states that stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge, so until a judge approves and signs it, it has no force of law. We could not confirm entry as of October 12, 2026.

What exactly did the FTC accuse Greenway of doing?

Two things, both pleaded under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. First, advertising vehicle prices the dealerships would not honor, with buyers allegedly overcharged in over 92% of transactions by more than $3,350 on average (Compl. para. 2). Second, sending mailers falsely representing that recipients had won prizes, such as $2,500 in cash (Compl. paras. 72-80).

Is there money for consumers in this case?

Not under this proposed settlement. The FTC's October 8, 2026 release describes no monetary relief and the proposed order has no monetary judgment section, so there is no settlement fund, no claim form and no claims deadline associated with this filing. The order has not been entered, and the complaint's prayer for relief asks for injunctive relief plus whatever additional relief the court finds just and proper.

Which dealerships are named?

Greenway Automotive, Inc., Greenway Automotive Management, LLC, and five dealership corporations doing business as Greenway Kia at the Avenues, Greenway Kia North, Greenway Kia East, Greenway Kia West, and Greenway Hyundai Orlando.

Does a lemon law cover being charged more than the advertised price?

Generally no. Lemon laws are warranty statutes aimed at vehicles that keep failing after purchase, and their remedies run against the warrantor. Advertised-price and fee disputes run on different tracks: the FTC enforces the FTC Act itself and consumers have no private claim under it, while state unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes and state motor-vehicle advertising rules are the routes that may give an individual buyer a claim, depending on the state.

What is the 'Total Price' requirement in the proposed order?

Section II of the proposed order would bar the defendants from representing any amount a consumer may pay without disclosing the Total Price, clearly and conspicuously, as the most prominently displayed item in any visual disclosure. It includes a safe harbor where a third-party listing site displays something different despite the dealership supplying the Total Price and asking for it to be shown most prominently.

What was the March 2026 warning letter?

The complaint says the FTC wrote to Greenway Auto Group on March 11, 2026 identifying illegal advertising practices, including advertising a price that omits required fees or reflects rebates not available to all consumers. The FTC alleges the conduct continued afterward and that the chain added price-transparency assurances to its websites (Compl. paras. 83-84).

Where can I report a dealer over advertised prices or fees?

Complaints can be filed with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov and with the attorney general of the state where the dealership operates. Both are free. Whether a specific transaction gives rise to a legal claim depends on facts a lawyer licensed in that state would need to review.