Mazda Class Action Alleges False Advertising on Monroney Labels for Vehicle Safety Features

by Madison A. Gregg and Samuel Indermaur

Monroney Labels: Purpose and Practice

Also known as “window stickers,” Monroney labels are federally mandated disclosure labels that must be affixed to every new automobile before its delivery to a dealer or placement on the market. Congress established the requirement with the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 (the “Monroney Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1231–1233.

By statute, the label must contain “true and correct” entries disclosing the manufacturer’s suggested retail price; the make, model, and serial number; the final assembly point; the name and location of the place of business of the dealer to whom the vehicle is being delivered; the name of the city or town at which it is to be delivered to such dealer; the method of transportation used in making the delivery of such automobile; and assigned safety ratings. Removing, altering, or falsely endorsing these labels is unlawful, and willful violations of the Monroney Act may trigger vehicle penalties.

The policy goal has remained continuous since the law’s enactment: make key pricing and equipment facts visible at the point of sale so consumers can rely on standardized information when choosing among models.

What are the Claims in the Mazda Class Action Lawsuit?

In July 2025, Kyle Johanson (“Plaintiff”), filed a proposed class action in the Northern District of Illinois (Johanson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-7546) alleges that certain Mazda3 models were sold with Monroney labels misrepresenting equipment. Specifically, the complaint notes that the labels promised an “8-speaker audio system” and “HD Radio,” but affected vehicles actually shipped with a six-speaker system and standard (non-HD) radio. The pleading cites an email from a Mazda district sales manager acknowledging errors on the Mazda3 Monroney labels and efforts to quietly update electronic labels without compensating customers who had already purchased the vehicles. Plaintiff contends these statements were material to pricing and purchase decisions and is pursuing a nationwide class, along with an Illinois subclass. Because Monroney labels are central to customer decision-making, Plaintiff pleads he relied on the window sticker and paid a price premium, for which he brings claims for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, fraud, warranty, and related allegations tethered to the misstatements on the stickers.

How Do Inaccurate Window Stickers Violate Federal Consumer Protection and Advertising Laws?

While the Monroney Act is primarily enforced by government authorities, a false or altered window sticker may be direct evidence of a statutory violation for which a private plaintiff may bring suit. First, the Monroney Act itself requires manufacturers to endorse “true and correct” entries on the label and willfully failing to do so constitutes a “false endorsement” and is a per-vehicle offense punishable by fines. Second, inaccurate Monroney statements can be an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, which broadly prohibits deceptive conduct in commerce. The FTC and state attorneys general have repeatedly used this authority against deceptive automotive marketing. Third, the National Highway Safety Traffic Authority’s (“NHSTA”) New Car Assessment Program (“NCAP”) safety-labeling rule makes safety-rating information part of the Monroney label. Inaccuracies about ratings or required safety-label content can violate NHTSA’s labeling regime. Further, private plaintiffs typically combine these federal hooks with state unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAP”) statutes (e.g., Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 I.L.C.S. 505/1), as well as claims for common-law fraud or negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Where written warranties are implicated, a claim may be available under the Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312.

What damages and remedies are plaintiffs seeking in Monroney label false advertising cases?

In Monroney label false advertising cases, plaintiffs seek relief based on a theory of “price premiums.” Rather than claim they would not have purchased the automobile in the absence of the false advertisement, plaintiffs assert that they were illegally required to pay a “premium” for the product and seek to recoup the difference between the purchase price and the market price.

In Johanson v. Mazda, the complaint asks the court to:
(1) Certify a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass;
(2) Award compensatory damages, including any statutory damages;
(3) Order the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains;
(4) Impose punitive damages to deter future misconduct; and/or
(5) Issue injunctive relief requiring Mazda to correct mislabeling.

Protect Your Rights

There is no substitute for the clarity and support a consumer protection attorney can provide when dealing with fraudulent, abusive, or deceptive consumer practices. At Miller Shah, we pride ourselves on delivering dependable legal services to a diverse clientele. With offices throughout the country, our team is here to help with claims that are both local and nationwide. Contact us today to discuss your concerns and learn how we can assist you in protecting your rights as a consumer.