The OEM establishes the starting price
Manufacturer websites and national advertising shape what consumers believe the vehicle should cost before they ever contact a dealership.
A better pricing model for powersports
The advertised price should look like the real price.
Freight and setup are usually real costs. The problem is a manufacturer pricing structure that routinely leaves unavoidable charges outside the headline price, putting consumers and honest dealers in a bad position.
Our position
Mandatory freight should be included in manufacturer pricing, and dealers should receive realistic reimbursement for required setup work—without reducing dealer margin.
The problem
A legitimate cost can still be presented in a misleading way.
Powersports dealers often receive vehicles with freight already charged on the invoice and required setup work still to be completed. Manufacturers may advertise only MSRP, leaving the dealer to explain why the actual selling price must be higher.
The dealer inherits unavoidable costs
Freight may already be on the invoice, and the unit may require assembly, inspection, software updates, testing, and final preparation.
The customer sees a pricing disconnect
When mandatory costs appear after the headline price, the customer often blames the dealer—even when the manufacturer created the underlying structure.
This is not an argument that freight and setup have no value. It is an argument that predictable, unavoidable costs should not be hidden outside the price used to attract and compare customers.
Where the charges come from
Freight moves the product. Setup makes it ready.
Both can represent real work and real expense. The transparency problem begins when they are unavoidable but excluded from the prominent manufacturer price.
Freight or destination
Freight generally covers transportation from a factory, port, warehouse, or distribution facility to the dealership. The dealer normally cannot decline that expense, and it may appear directly on the dealer invoice.
Transparency principle: When every dealer must pay a known transportation charge, that charge belongs in the manufacturer’s displayed comparison price.
Setup, assembly, and preparation
Many units arrive partially assembled or require manufacturer-directed preparation before delivery. The amount of labor varies by product, but the obligation is commonly unavoidable.
Transparency principle: Manufacturers should provide realistic setup reimbursement rather than forcing dealers to create a separate customer charge to recover required labor.
Assembly
Wheels, handlebars, batteries, roofs, windshields, seats, and other components may require installation.
Inspection
Fluids, fasteners, tire pressure, electrical systems, recalls, and safety items may need verification.
Activation
Batteries, software, electronic systems, warranty registration, and diagnostic checks may be required.
Delivery preparation
Fueling, cleaning, testing, documentation, and customer orientation all consume dealership time.
Why it became a bigger problem
Online shopping changed the incentives.
Consumers now sort hundreds of units by price. A dealership that includes every unavoidable charge may appear more expensive than a competitor showing only MSRP or a conditional discount.
The result: The market can punish dealers who disclose the most and reward advertisements that disclose the least. A consistent manufacturer-level pricing standard would give every dealer the same honest starting point.
The shopper sees an OEM price
Manufacturer marketing establishes a powerful expectation before the dealer enters the conversation.
Search tools reward the lowest number
Marketplaces frequently rank inventory by the headline price rather than the complete price.
Dealers face competitive pressure
Showing a complete price can make an honest dealership look artificially expensive.
Trust breaks down at the store
The consumer discovers unavoidable costs late and concludes that the dealership changed the price.
The automobile comparison
The auto industry created a standardized manufacturer disclosure.
The Automobile Information Disclosure Act requires new automobiles to carry a manufacturer label disclosing MSRP, factory-installed options, the transportation charge paid by the dealer, and a total. The system is not perfect, but it gives auto shoppers a more complete manufacturer-generated starting point.
| Pricing element | New automobiles | Typical powersports presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Base MSRP | Disclosed on the manufacturer label | Usually disclosed |
| Factory-installed options | Disclosed on the manufacturer label | May be disclosed inconsistently |
| Transportation charge | Disclosed on the manufacturer label | Often listed separately or left for the dealer to explain |
| Manufacturer total | A total of required label amounts is displayed | No universal standardized total |
| Dealer preparation | Generally handled within the retail structure | Frequently recovered through a separate setup or preparation charge |
Industry leadership
BMW Motorrad stepped up. Kudos to them.
BMW Motorrad is the first major OEM serving the American market that we recognize as compliant with this site’s pricing-transparency standard. We believe in giving credit where it is due—and we hope this recognition list grows as other OEMs adopt the same approach.
BMW Motorrad
BMW Motorrad deserves recognition for stepping forward with a pricing structure that more clearly addresses destination charges and required dealer preparation. That is a meaningful improvement for consumer clarity and gives dealers a fairer, more consistent starting point.
Thank you to BMW Motorrad for doing the right thing and showing that a better powersports pricing model is possible.
Visit BMW Motorrad USA →Recognition updated August 2, 2026. As additional OEMs adopt this transparency standard, we will be glad to recognize and add them here.
Recent FTC activity
Vehicle pricing remains an active enforcement issue.
These actions involved automobile dealers, not powersports manufacturers. They matter because they show the FTC’s continued focus on advertised prices, mandatory fees, unwanted add-ons, and whether consumers can actually obtain the price used in advertising.
Dec. 2024
Leader Automotive Group
The FTC and Illinois announced a proposed $20 million settlement involving allegations of deceptive pricing, unwanted add-ons, junk fees, and other conduct. The proposed order included disclosure of an offering price excluding only required government charges.
Official FTC release →Feb. 2026
CARS Rule formally withdrawn
The FTC formally withdrew the CARS Rule effective February 12, 2026, after the rule had been vacated by a federal appeals court. The withdrawal did not repeal the FTC Act’s existing prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
Federal Register notice →Mar. 2026
Warnings sent to 97 auto dealership groups
The FTC warned dealership groups to review advertising and pricing practices, including whether advertised prices include all fees consumers are required to pay and whether advertised prices match actual prices charged.
Official FTC release →Apr. 2026
Lindsay Automotive resolution announced
The FTC and Maryland announced a proposed resolution involving more than $75 million in charges potentially eligible for refunds, a $3.1 million state civil penalty, and a requirement to provide the total vehicle price including mandatory fees.
Official FTC release →Important distinction: This website does not claim that a specific OEM has violated the law. It helps people document manufacturer pricing practices and submit factual information so the FTC can decide whether review or action is appropriate.
Report an OEM pricing practice
Focus the report on the manufacturer’s advertisement and pricing structure.
Use this tool when an OEM advertises a vehicle price that excludes a known, unavoidable freight or destination charge, omits required setup obligations, or creates a price expectation that dealers cannot realistically honor without adding mandatory costs.
Save the OEM page
Capture the full webpage, URL, date, prominent price, disclosures, fine print, and any separate destination or freight page.
Explain the dealer impact
Describe how the manufacturer price created an expectation the dealer could not meet without adding unavoidable manufacturer-related costs.
Stick to provable facts
Do not organize duplicate, speculative, or retaliatory reports. Specific, well-supported accounts are more credible and useful.
A workable solution
Transparent pricing should protect consumers and dealer profitability.
The goal is not to eliminate legitimate costs or force dealers to absorb them. The goal is to make pricing comparable and move unavoidable manufacturer-related charges into a consistent national structure.
Manufacturers
- Include mandatory freight in prominent pricing.
- Provide realistic setup reimbursement.
- Use the same pricing standard across OEM channels.
Dealers
- Advertise a price available to every customer.
- Include dealer-controlled mandatory charges.
- Separate optional products from required costs.
Marketplaces
- Rank inventory using complete prices.
- Create clear fields for mandatory charges.
- Prevent fine print from contradicting the headline.
Consumers
- Ask for written price details.
- Save advertisements and disclosures.
- Report specific OEM practices in good faith.
“Our advertised price includes all charges required by our dealership except tax, title, registration, licensing, and other government-imposed charges.”Support the change
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers without pretending every fee is the same.
Are freight and setup charges fake?
No. Freight and setup commonly represent real costs. The issue is whether an unavoidable and predictable cost is excluded from the prominent price used to market the vehicle.
Is this website accusing every OEM of breaking the law?
No. The website identifies a pricing transparency concern and encourages people to provide factual information to the FTC. The FTC decides whether a practice warrants investigation or violates federal law.
Why focus reports on manufacturers instead of dealers?
Manufacturers establish MSRP, national advertising, destination structures, dealer invoice charges, and setup requirements. A manufacturer-level solution creates a consistent starting point and avoids punishing dealers that disclose costs honestly.
Should a dealership be named in an FTC report?
Only when necessary to explain an actual experience or document the impact of an OEM price presentation. The report should remain focused on the manufacturer practice and should not make unsupported allegations against the dealer.
Does the FTC respond individually to every report?
Not necessarily. Reports can help the FTC and other law-enforcement agencies identify patterns and build investigations. Filing a report does not guarantee an individual response, investigation, or recovery.
What costs could still be listed separately?
Tax, title, registration, licensing, and other government-imposed charges often vary by customer or location. Any exclusions should be described clearly and should not include mandatory charges controlled by the manufacturer or seller.
Would including freight in pricing reduce dealer margin?
It should not. Any reform should preserve dealer margin and include a separate, realistic reimbursement for required setup and preparation labor.
Primary sources
Read the underlying material.
- FTC ReportFraud portal
- FTC ReportFraud frequently asked questions
- FTC truth-in-advertising overview
- FTC warning letters announcement, March 2026
- FTC Lindsay Automotive announcement, April 2026
- FTC Leader Automotive announcement, December 2024
- Federal Register: withdrawal of the CARS Rule
- 15 U.S.C. § 1232: automobile label requirements