James S. Barry, Jr. v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., a Corporation Organized Under…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, holding that Arrow Pontiac’s advertisement comparing its price to a "dealer invoice" is misleading and falls within the scope of N.J.A.C. 13:45A-2.2(a)(7)(iv), and that the regulation does not violate the First Amendment, nor is it unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Court applied the Central Hudson four‑part test and concluded the advertisement fails the first prong because it is deceptive. A dissenting opinion argued that the regulation improperly bans the term "dealer invoice" and should be struck down.