TSLA367.810-0.35%
GM83.760-2.03%
F13.470-0.53%
RIVN16.005-0.165%
CYD37.230-0.49%
HMC31.3000.24%
TM190.970-0.48%
CVNA73.430-1.29%
PAG218.3101.45%
LAD367.720-0.98%
AN209.180-0.12%
GPI287.7206.12%
ABG212.380-0.53%
SAH76.2500.25%
TSLA367.810-0.35%
GM83.760-2.03%
F13.470-0.53%
RIVN16.005-0.165%
CYD37.230-0.49%
HMC31.3000.24%
TM190.970-0.48%
CVNA73.430-1.29%
PAG218.3101.45%
LAD367.720-0.98%
AN209.180-0.12%
GPI287.7206.12%
ABG212.380-0.53%
SAH76.2500.25%
TSLA367.810-0.35%
GM83.760-2.03%
F13.470-0.53%
RIVN16.005-0.165%
CYD37.230-0.49%
HMC31.3000.24%
TM190.970-0.48%
CVNA73.430-1.29%
PAG218.3101.45%
LAD367.720-0.98%
AN209.180-0.12%
GPI287.7206.12%
ABG212.380-0.53%
SAH76.2500.25%

FTC ends disparate-impact discrimination claims, revises dealer compliance obligations

The Commission said it will no longer pursue disparate-impact theories under Section 5 and modified compliance obligations for three automotive companies.

FTC ends disparate-impact discrimination claims, revises dealer compliance obligations

FTC Chairman | Andrew N. Ferguson

On the Dash;

  • FTC will no longer pursue disparate-impact claims under its stated Section 5 policy.
  • Certain dealer compliance obligations tied to past disparate-impact analyses are being modified.
  • ECOA disparate-treatment enforcement remains in place.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Friday, August 7, 2026, that it will no longer pursue legal claims based on disparate-impact or “unfair discrimination” theories under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As part of this policy shift, the Commission modified existing compliance obligations for three automotive businesses previously subject to statistical disparate-impact requirements.

The FTC voted 2-0 to approve the policy statement following a 2025 executive order that instructed federal agencies to limit disparate-impact liability.

Sign up for CBT News’ daily newsletter and get the latest industry stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson stated that the agency lacks statutory authority to penalize businesses without proof of intentional discrimination. In distinguishing the two legal frameworks, the FTC noted:

  • Disparate Impact: Presumes that statistical differences in outcomes across demographic groups constitute unlawful discrimination, even when a business maintains neutral policies and lacks discriminatory intent. The Commission warned that this approach forces companies to make race-based decisions simply to avoid regulatory action.
  • Disparate Treatment: Prohibits intentional discrimination against protected groups, which the FTC will continue to prosecute under federal fair-lending laws.

Ferguson said in a statement, “Disparate-impact claims are nearly impossible to square with our colorblind Constitution.” He added, “They impose liability for discrimination without any evidence that anyone intended to discriminate, which pushes businesses to make race-based decisions in order to avoid liability. The Commission never had authority to impose disparate-impact liability. Today, we announce that the Commission will never do so again.”

Impact on dealers

This decision removes disparate-impact liability as an active enforcement tool for the FTC, altering how federal regulators monitor financing and sales practices.

However, the change does not relieve dealerships of their core compliance responsibilities. The FTC explicitly maintains its authority to enforce fair-lending and consumer-protection statutes against intentional misconduct. Dealerships must continue reviewing their F&I, markup, lending, and sales procedures to prevent intentional disparate treatment.

More from Safety & Compliance
FTC warns car buyers about fake dealership websites and payment scams

FTC warns car buyers about fake dealership websites and payment scams

- September 2, 2026
On the Dash: Scammers can copy dealership branding, vehicle listings, photos and even customer testimonials. Shoppers should confirm a vehicle and dealership exist before sending money. Buyers purchasing remotely...
The monthly payment gap is creating a new compliance risk for dealers

The monthly payment gap is creating a new compliance risk for dealers

- September 2, 2026
While the monthly payment has become one of the most important numbers in the car-buying process, it may also be emerging as a considerable compliance blind spot for dealers. Joining us...
AFIP director's warning for dealers on the FTC's pricing policy update

AFIP director’s warning for dealers on the FTC’s pricing policy update

- August 27, 2026
Federal regulators are recalibrating how they police pricing at dealerships, even as a fresh multimillion-dollar settlement shows they have no plans to back off auto retail entirely. Shannon Robertson, Executive...
How dealers can optimize payment processing to boost profit, lower compliance risk

How dealers can optimize payment processing to boost profit, lower compliance risk

- August 26, 2026
Payment processing in retail automotive presents a complex web of operational challenges, ranging from strict regulatory compliance risks to hidden costs that quietly drain bottom-line revenue. On today’s episode of...
CBT News
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.