Vehicle Laws - Manufacturers and Dealers - Prices Listed on Dealer Websites (Jack Fitzgerald Price Transparency Act)
HB0306, the Jack Fitzgerald Price Transparency Act, amends Maryland’s motor vehicle dealer laws to protect dealers from retaliation by manufacturers, distributors, or factory branches when the dealer discloses certain pricing information on its website. Specifically, the bill bars a manufacturer or similar entity from taking an adverse action against a dealer solely because the dealer states that an advertised vehicle price reflects the manufacturer’s minimum allowable advertised price and that the dealer may offer a lower price. The measure is aimed at allowing dealers to be more transparent online about pricing without risking penalties from the manufacturer.
The bill also preserves existing prohibitions on false, deceptive, or misleading advertising by dealers and on advertising vehicles without intent to sell them as advertised. It takes effect October 1, 2026, and is codified as an amendment to Transportation Article § 15-207, with related reference to § 15-313. In practical terms, it limits manufacturer leverage over dealer website pricing disclosures while leaving general consumer-protection advertising rules in place.
HB0306 changes Maryland Transportation law governing the relationship between motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, factory branches, and dealers. It adds a specific protection preventing adverse manufacturer action against a dealer for posting certain minimum-price disclosures on a dealer website, so long as the dealer is not otherwise violating the advertising restrictions in § 15-313 or other public-protection laws. The bill affects franchise relationships, dealer advertising practices, and manufacturer incentive or enforcement practices tied to online price transparency.
The available record suggests the bill was generally favorable and uncontroversial, as reflected by its passage and approval by the Governor. The bill’s title and structure indicate a consumer- and dealer-transparency purpose, and there is no committee transcript or recorded vote data showing organized opposition in the provided materials. Overall, the sentiment appears supportive of allowing dealers to disclose pricing information more openly online.
The main policy tension in the bill is between dealer autonomy in advertising and manufacturer control over pricing presentation. Supporters would likely view the measure as protecting transparency and preventing retaliation against dealers that disclose minimum advertised prices, while any critics would be concerned about limiting manufacturers’ ability to enforce brand pricing standards or manage how vehicles are marketed. The bill does not eliminate dealer advertising rules; instead, it narrows the dispute to whether manufacturers can punish dealers for this specific type of website disclosure.