1967 Cadillac Eldorado window sticker / Bring a Trailer
Since 1959, all new cars sold in the U.S. have had window labels disclosing the manufacturer’s suggested retail prices and other information. Those labels are often called “Monroney stickers,” after the late Oklahoma Senator Mike Monroney, who coauthored the 1958 federal law that originally mandated them. Here’s how — and why — that requirement came about.
The 1967 Cadillac Eldorado from which the above window sticker came; it originally stickered for $7,814.70 including a $205 destination charge / Bring a Trailer
Almer Stillwell “Mike” Monroney (1902–1980) was a rakishly handsome congressman and senator from Oklahoma City, a one-time political reporter who got into politics himself in 1937. He served for 12 years in the House of Representatives and then ran for Senate in 1950. During his 18-year senatorial tenure, he championed issues like civil rights, rural electrification, airport construction, and the establishment of the Federal Aviation Administration (whose aeronautical center in Oklahoma City now bears his name).
Mahoney also sat on the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and in February 1955, he and two of his colleagues were appointed to a new subcommittee on automobile marketing. The formation of the subcommittee was prompted in large part by the aggressive and sometimes predatory sales, marketing, and franchising tactics that had become widespread in the auto industry since the end of Korean War restrictions in 1953.
After conducting a massive study on dealer practices, the subcommittee pushed for a major overhaul of automaker-dealer relations and franchise agreements, which resulted in dozens of voluntary reforms. They then turned their attention to finance and insurance practices and marketing, which in March 1958 led Monroney and his subcommittee colleagues to author Senate Bill 3500, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act.
Before World War 2, suggested retail prices often appeared in new car advertising (as in this 1936 Dodge ad featuring Claudette Colbert), but this practice largely disappeared in the U.S. after the war
During subcommittee hearings in April 1958 (transcripts of which are available online, and are lively if somewhat repetitive reading), Monroney explained the problem S.3500 was intended to address:
If one walks within 10 feet of the door of an automobile showroom, he will get an hour’s lecture on the details of hydromatic [sic], mercomatics, dynaflows, powerglides, twin-beam headlamps, torsion bar suspension, torsion air suspension, two- and four-way seat lifts with a memory, dual and triple carburetors, and even jet fuel injection. One can find out about convertible hardtops, hardtop convertibles that do convert, hardtop convertibles that do not convert, power steering, power brakes, power windows, and a lot about horsepower.
But the one simple fact that he really wants to know—how much does the darn thing cost?—he cannot find out at all. It may help a little if one is an ex-FBI agent charged with vitamin pills, a jet-propelled slide rule, and a library full of blue books, green books, orange books, and red books—assisted by a doctor of philosophy in mathematics.
Monroney noted that in the past, list prices had often appeared in advertising and even on billboards, but by the mid-’50s, it was “almost necessary to use a Ouija board” to find manufacturer suggested retail prices. Although there were new car price guides in the ’50s, and car magazines, trade journals, and consumer publications like Consumer Reports included suggested retail prices where available, finding such information required a buyer to proactively seek it out, and usually pay for it from some third party. Even if a customer had a price guide, a dealer could simply insist that the guide was wrong (which it sometimes was, since manufacturer list prices might change mid-year). It could also be hard to know what equipment was standard or optional (since many automakers still treated common features like heaters, turn signals, and backup lights as extra-cost add-ons), or what features were and weren’t included in the prices the dealer quoted.
Newspaper ad for Andrews Chevrolet in Boone, North Carolina, from The Watauga Democrat, September 15, 1957
Automakers weren’t any help, referring prospective buyers back to dealers rather than supplying suggested retail prices upon request. This lack of transparency invited all manner of what Monroney termed “flimflam.” For instance, dealers might claim to offer big discounts off inflated, fictitious sticker prices while still charging well above actual MSRP. Another common tactic was “double pushup,” where a dealer tempted customers with inflated allowances on their old cars and then pumped up the price of the new car so that the customer was actually paying more, even with the higher trade-in value.
1958 Edsel ad for Guy Steuart Motors in Silver Spring, Maryland
During his testimony before the subcommittee, John L. O’Brien, head of the Better Business Bureau of Akron, Ohio, also deplored the increasingly common practice of advertising monthly payments rather than actual selling prices. The hearing transcript included the following exchange:
Senator MONRONEY. Did you see the double-page colored ad in the Saturday Evening Post—I don’t know what it cost, but I know a great many thousands of dollars—beautiful color, beautiful art work, design, and a picture of the new four-passenger Thunderbird, and in the center where the price used to be I find: “you can buy it for $66 a month,” but it doesn’t say how many months. This is the Ford Motor Co. advertising a most desired product—even counsel for the committee has gone out and bought one.
Mr. O’BRIEN. Dare we ask him how many months?
Senator MONRONEY. He hasn’t told me.
Another problem Monroney hoped to combat was bootlegging, where franchisees sold cars to non-franchised dealers, like used car lots, to resell as new cars. Automakers downplayed the extent of this issue, but it became widespread in the mid-’50s, which many dealers claimed was a side effect of manufacturers pressuring franchise-holders to absorb overproduction by accepting more cars than they could reasonably sell. Selling to bootleg channels was technically prohibited by franchise agreements, but it was a useful way to clear excess inventory, and automakers often looked the other way. Bootlegging was especially common in Southern and Southwestern states, where cars might be driven hundreds of miles to a dealer in another state. Monroney remarked:
I think, while the pricing disclosure today, is of tremendous importance, it is also important that a car has an honest statement of the method of delivery. Thus, you wouldn’t buy a car that has been driven by a hotrod—as one of the witnesses stated—who drove the car clear across the country and yet have it sold on a used-car lot as a brand-new car.
Monroney had tentatively suggested requiring disclosures of these kinds when industry leaders testified before the subcommittee back in 1956, but at that time, he said, “The general reaction was mild disapproval.” With S. 3500, Monroney took pains to emphasize that the proposed requirements weren’t intended to be adversarial, or to prohibit “that great American sport of bargaining over prices,” but rather to protect buyers, automakers, and honest dealers from misleading marketing and unfair merchandising tactics. He added, “We are ready, willing, and anxious to make it conform to the industry practices necessary to make it workable without undue hardship or legal technicalities.”
I couldn’t find the Saturday Evening Post ad Monroney mentioned, but this 1958 Thunderbird ad advises, “To get the details—particularly about Thunderbird’s price, which is far below that of other luxury cars—see your Ford Dealer soon.”
It was a good pitch, one which even the National Automobile Dealers’ Association (NADA) strongly favored, and so S. 3500 passed the Senate in May 1958, just three weeks after the hearings. The House approved it in June, and President Eisenhower signed it into law on July 7.
Here’s what the law (15 USC 1232) originally required: The information disclosure label had to be provided by the manufacturer or importer, securely affixed to the windshield or side window of each new passenger car or station wagon, and contain the following information:
- the make, model, and serial or identification number or numbers;
- the final assembly point;
- the name, and the location, of the place of business of the dealer to whom it was to be delivered;
- the name of the city or town at which it was to be delivered to that dealer;
- the method of transportation used in making delivery, if the automobile was driven or towed from final assembly point to the place of delivery;
- the retail price suggested by the manufacturer;
- the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment physically attached to the automobile at the time of its delivery to the dealer;
- the amount charged, if any, to the dealer for the transportation of the automobile to the location at which it is delivered to the dealer; and
- the total manufacturer suggested retail price, including optional equipment and delivery charges.
Willfully falsifying or failing to affix this label, or removing, altering, or obscuring the information before the car was delivered to the ultimate purchaser, became a federal crime, with each offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison. These requirements first became effective October 1, 1958, the beginning of the 1959 model year.
1959 Chevrolets on display at Vogel Chevrolet in Sacramento, California / Dreyfus+Blackford
This law is still in effect, but it’s been amended several times to introduce additional disclosure requirements:
- The now-familiar EPA fuel economy ratings, which were first required for the 1977 model year, were mandated by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which also established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules for automakers. The required EPA mileage disclosures were redesigned in 2007 under the Energy Independence and Security Act, and were expanded by new NHTSA regulations in 2013.
- In 1992, American Automobile Labeling Act required disclosure of a new car’s domestic and foreign content, including the origin of the engine and transmission and the location of final assembly, effective October 1, 1994.
- In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) mandated disclosure of the vehicle’s ratings in New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) safety tests, effective September 1, 2007.
With new cars and trucks electronically harvesting more and more personal information about users, the Department of Commerce Internet of Things Advisory Board recommended in 2024 that the labeling requirements be expanded to also include information about data privacy.
All this has made modern window stickers increasingly crowded, leading to a growing reliance on QR Codes that buyers can scan for more information. Personally, I have strong reservations about that — to some extent, it may be unavoidable (I can’t see many customers actually reading a corporate privacy policy printed on a window sticker!), but I think it comes perilously close to undermining the original purpose of the disclosure law: Mike Monroney felt strongly that new car buyers were entitled to receive certain important information about their prospective purchase without needing to send away for a list, buy a price guide, or “almost use a Ouija board” to get it, and burying the required disclosures on some external website a buyer must access with a smartphone would seem to fall into that category.
The Monroney sticker for this 1990 Volkswagen Corrado shows a suggested retail price of $18,220, including a $320 destination charge / Bring a Trailer
Of course, Monroney stickers haven’t eliminated the “flimflam” by any means. Unscrupulous or greedy dealers promptly slapped on their own price stickers, inflating the prices with dealer-installed accessories, aftermarket rustproofing treatments, or those old standbys “ADP” (Additional Dealer Profit) and “AMV” (Adjusted Market Value). The popularity of leasing has further buried actual selling prices (as “capitalized cost”), new and used car advertising still often quotes estimated monthly payments rather than retail prices, and salespeople have developed new and more cunning tactics for the trade-in “double pushup.”
The dealership that originally sold the yellow VW Corrado pictured above attached this separate label next to the Monroney sticker, adding an extra $400 for “adjusted market value” — outrageous price-gouging on an expensive and slow-selling car / Bring a Trailer
However, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act was at least a useful starting point. As the editors of Advertising Age said in January 1958, “Letting the public in on the secret of what the cars ought to cost is the logical and most important first step on the road to marketing sanity.”
Related Reading
Curbside History: Monroney Sticker – 1975 Volvo 164 (by Connor Kleck)
This was interesting! I had been aware that some version of the window sticker had been around for my entire life, but I did not know the backstory, so thanks for this.
I suspect that another factor that rankled about the pricing shenanigans during/after the Korean conflict was that they came on top of even bigger shenanigans that happened during the terrible shortages in the aftermath of WWII. My law school course on contracts included the study of published cases brought during that lopsided seller’s market, when “anything goes” seemed to be the rule for selling the scarce new cars that were finally getting to market after production resumed, which everyone was screaming for and would happily pay extra for.
I was thinking the same thing regarding the market distortions in the immediate WWII aftermath. And I think there’s somewhat of a modern parallel as well – the 2020/21 “supply chain” issues. For a while there were product shortages (not just w/ cars) related to supply chain disruptions, which prompted manufacturers and retailers to aggressively raise prices, blaming shortages. But they quickly realized that customers would still buy those products even with inflated prices and questionable markup… so there was no incentive to discontinue the practice once the immediate problem had abated.
These kinds of things can successfully jack up profits for a while, but eventually public frustration will prompt legislative action… and then the process starts over again.
I was just browsing new cars last week, and noticed that every Toyota dealer here in Virginia tacks on a $1,000 “document fee” – clearly flying in the face of transparency urged by Monroney, but still common practice. Obviously, Toyota sees no harm in letting its dealers do this.
Oklahoma’s senators carried the New Deal spirit after most politicians turned against it. Not too surprising, since some of the New Deal (like FDIC) was inspired by earlier Okla laws.
The dealer training films from the 50s advised dealers how to perform those tricks. One of them told how to do a fake appraisal. Of course those films were NOT available to the public at that time!
Unexpectedly interesting stuff. I wonder if there will be an Interpretive Rule issued like there recently was for CAFE, in which it all remains on the statute books but with the penalties for non-compliance reduced to $0?
For people like me, who detest shopping and can’t be bothered negotiating, and who just feel itchy and impatient and repelled at the very thought of even entering a car dealer, legislative protections like this are a godsend. (Also, I can cheat: have a car-dealer close friend, so I simply haven’t had to do any such work for years!) We have similar protections to the Monroney act here, probably partly copied, thank gawd. (For Constitutional reasons, they are mainly State instead of Federal, but they’re all pretty much to a uniform template now).
But I still have to buy, say, computers, about which I know nothing and never intend to because they bore me to dust, and the protections for such still-expensive items is not at the same level. In my rush to get the hell out of the shop with a functioning product, I have been sold the equivalent of quite a few vastly-marked-up, rusted and warranty-less Yugos over the years, lemme tell you!
Good to see that the Edsel has an oil filter as standard… desperation much?
Oil filters were not at all universal at the time. I don’t think Chevrolets had them until 1959, and may have still been optional.
I think they weren’t standard on Chevrolet until 1962. They had been optional for a long time (at least since 1948).
There is a whole industry out there that makes fake original stickers for vintage cars.
They even create them for pre-1959 cars (which did not have them).
One of the most obvious ways to tell a fake early sticker from a real one is that in the early post 1959 era computers used a tractor feed for rolls of these stickers. They had rows of holes on each side. No row of holes (or left over perforations from where these holes were removed) means the window sticker is a “reproduction,” not a real one.
Being a car guy, I saved most of my new car Monroneys (Monronies?) going back to 1968. One had to demand the sticker be saved, lest the dealership toss it during PDI and delivery. They make fascinating reading.
Reading through Sen. Monroney’s list of grievances, it seems like…not much has really changed? I mean, I grew up in the 70s and 80s and all those practices were things we learned to expect when car shopping.
> In 1992, American Automobile Labeling Act required disclosure of a new car’s domestic and foreign content, including the origin of the engine and transmission and the location of final assembly, effective October 1, 1994.
What is the official (or unofficial) reason for including Canada but not Mexico in those percentages of domestic content?
The 1965 Auto Pact, basically.
Something similar applies here plus we have a consumer guarantee act that goods must be fit for purpose and of merchantable quality, which applies to used car dealers too, so the extra warranty they try to upsell you too isnt really required all faults are on the dealer for 12 months anyway, Country of origin is also noted on window info sheets, NZ new means there should be a local supply of parts and expertise if it goes wrong and if its a used import youre buying with any luck theres something around that fits.
Sounds odd? do you know how many versions of a Camry there are? no, well NZ new versions had unique headlights no longer produced and nothing actually swaps in, 2 month search by my parts lady to find one and she is very good at her job.
It was needed and is useful but I suspect not all that many buyers actually look at them, given all of the incentives, mark-ups, on-line shopping, leases, etc..
I was at a commercial truck dealer and found the stickers lacked prices. Dealers can order medium duty trucks without MSRP listed on the sticker.
In 1988 my ex wife and I went to Robertson Honda in North Hollywood, Ca. and bought a new four door Honda Accord . they had something like $1,800 ADM, I asked what the deal was and they said take it or leave it .
My ex was accustomed to my hard bargaining and settled in to fight, they finally sold us the car below the MSRP about 30 minutes before closing, I don’t think that poor salesman had time to deal with any other Customers that Sunday =8-) .
When they got us into the final rood to offer extended warranty and so on I offered 1/2 price, they took it and we used the hell out of that warranty .
-Nate
Very interesting article so thanks for posting. I think there are still some strange stuff going on with how new cars are priced.
May 2010, I lived in Ottawa Ontario, and special ordered a 2011 Camaro that was not going into production until mid June 2010. At that time Camaro’s were built only a few hundred miles from my home, still in Ontario. I ordered the car but had two issues with the pricing.
First issue: My car was made only a few hundred miles from my dealership in Canada, but I had to pay the same destination charge if the car was shipped to the US, just like all the 2011 Camaro’s. When they tack on a destination charge do they just average cost to ship world wide? Why was I paying the same to ship my car a few hundred miles vs thousands of miles to the US.?
Second issue: May 2010, the USD & CAD dollar were equal (please let that be equal again). But GM Canada had a $5,000 extra MSRP on Camaro’s, made in Canada, sold in Canada vs those exported to the US. What!!!
At the time I was a US expat in Canada, I could purchase my Camaro in the US for thousands less then I would pay in Canada. The issue was GM Canada would not honor warranties’ for cars bought new in the States. Ford would honor warranties’ for cross border purchases.
Bottom line, I special ordered my Camaro in Canada, got the car I wanted and still enjoy it today in Virginia.
If prior to 1959 car sales pricing was the wild west and manufacturers were fine with that one can only imagine some of the monkey business that went on between manufacturers and dealers. I’ll bet that manufacturers had sales offices that routinely offered deals like special pricing, free financing, who know what else to favored dealers. Big dealers who did big volume likely paid less for cars than small town low volume sellers.
I just bought a new Nissan and my brother a new Ford, both in mid-July. Each dealer had added a LoJack to all of its new vehicles claiming that it helped track them down if stolen. They said stolen new vehicles off dealer lots is common. I find this hard to believe for all dealers. Not all are located in high crime areas. Neither of these dealers are. They just want to add as much garbage options to vehicles to increase the price to the consumer. So frustrating.
At least the Lojak might be more effective than Polyglycoat, the 1980’s crap that was added to almost every Honda … but not my Civic that I bought new in late 1981. I had to go far and wide to find a dealer that would sell at sticker, without pin striping, Scotchgard, Polyglycoat, floor mats, mud flaps (did I forget anything?) AND additional markup.
True! I remember the days of the undercoating and scotchgarding. Stupid stuff for me as I treat my vehicles very well and don’t eat inside them nor do I run through large water or mud puddles!
Funny seeing the AMV sticker from Hannah Motor Company. I own a car who’s sticker showed it was delivered to them. It was the exact vehicle I wanted but when I contacted them they failed to respond. So I went to another dealer, told them the exact vehicle I wanted, they “found one” and purchased it from that dealer, to sell it to me at the “Costco Member pricing”.
Thanks for the detailed info on the Monroney, I knew a bunch of it already but you filled in a few gaps.
That was a fine writeup, Aaron—nice of you to go back to the hearing transcripts. I have no idea whether Ford was the sole example, but here’s its fall-1958 advertising for the less ambitious second-year Edsel, with direct reference to the newly mandated pricing:
Thanks, George — I hadn’t seen that ad, but it’s very interesting.
I have always wondered why the prices for the options are never a round number, but include some number of cents, for example $84.20? Is it to make you think that these prices are actually based on the cost of the accessory?
The reason for the cents was a U.S. federal excise tax applied to new passenger cars and new passenger car accessories. The manufacturers paid this tax directly, and usually then added the amount of the tax to the retail price. During the Korean War, automakers delineated which part of their prices was base price and which was federal excise tax, but once wartime price controls were lifted, they mostly didn’t bother. In most U.S. states, federal excise taxes are considered part of the retail price for state and local tax purposes (the tax was taxable, in other words), so it was easier that way anyhow. That excise tax was rescinded during the Nixon administration, which is why from the early ’70s on, option prices are usually round numbers.