Vehicle Laws - Manufacturers and Dealers - Prices Listed on Dealer Websites
SB28 would limit the ability of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, and factory branches to control how Maryland dealers advertise vehicle prices on their own websites. The bill provides that, unless a dealer is violating certain dealer-advertising laws or other public-protection laws, a manufacturer or similar entity may not prohibit a dealer from listing a vehicle for sale or lease at the purchase price, require the dealer to list a different price, or take adverse action against the dealer for posting a particular price online. The bill also defines “purchase price” as the full delivered price of the vehicle, excluding only taxes, title fees, and any freight or dealer processing charge disclosed under existing law.
The bill also clarifies existing franchise-law protections by reinforcing limits on coercion and requirements imposed on dealers. It preserves the rule that manufacturers cannot use pricing, rebates, or financing terms to force facility changes or other business decisions, and it adds a specific protection for dealer website pricing practices. At the same time, it states that nothing in the bill prevents a manufacturer from requiring all dealers to include freight or dealer processing charges in website-listed prices, so long as that requirement is applied consistently.
In practical terms, SB28 would amend Maryland Transportation Article § 15-207, which governs manufacturer-dealer relations and unfair practices, and would leave § 15-313’s prohibitions on false or misleading advertising in place. The bill is aimed at dealer advertising and online pricing transparency, and it would become effective October 1, 2025. Its effect would be to give dealers more autonomy over website pricing while maintaining existing consumer-protection and anti-deception rules.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is pro-dealer and pro-transparency, with the measure framed as a protection against manufacturer interference in retail pricing. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available context. Based on the bill’s structure, likely support would come from dealers and those favoring pricing autonomy, while potential concerns would come from manufacturers or distributors that prefer uniform pricing controls or standardized online advertising practices.
The main point of contention is the balance between dealer independence and manufacturer oversight. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing coercive pricing mandates and protecting dealers from retaliation for online price listings. Opponents may argue that it limits brand-level pricing consistency or complicates enforcement of advertising standards, though the bill preserves the ability to require inclusion of freight and dealer processing charges and retains existing prohibitions on deceptive advertising.
SB28 would amend Maryland Transportation Article § 15-207 to expressly bar manufacturers, distributors, and factory branches from restricting dealer website listings at the purchase price, requiring different online prices, or retaliating against dealers for posting a particular price, while preserving existing anti-coercion and advertising rules. It would also leave § 15-313’s false or misleading advertising prohibitions intact, and it would take effect October 1, 2025. The bill primarily affects vehicle manufacturers, distributors, factory branches, and franchised dealers by expanding dealer pricing autonomy on websites and clarifying what may be included in advertised vehicle prices.
The bill appears generally favorable toward dealers and online price transparency, with the stated purpose of preventing manufacturer interference in dealer website pricing. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials. On its face, the bill is framed as a consumer- and dealer-facing clarification rather than a broad regulatory change, suggesting likely support from dealer interests and possible caution from manufacturer interests.
The central contention is whether manufacturers should be allowed to control or standardize the prices dealers display on their own websites. Supporters of SB28 would likely argue that dealers should be free from coercion and retaliation when advertising a vehicle’s purchase price online, while opponents may contend that manufacturers need some ability to enforce consistent pricing presentation across a brand. A secondary issue is the scope of permissible charges in advertised prices: the bill allows freight and dealer processing charges to be required in website pricing, but only if applied uniformly, which may still leave room for disputes over how pricing rules are implemented.