Tag Archive | "compliance"

FTC Targets Two Auto Loan Modification Companies


WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Trade Commission filed charges and requested a U.S. district court to stop the specific practices of two auto loan modification companies operating in California. The two companies charged include Hope for Car Owners LLC, NAFSO VLM Inc. and Kore Services LLC (doing business as Auto Debt Consulting).

The agency alleges that the defendants did not make any attempts to modify auto loans after collecting up-front fees and didn’t pay promised refunds for failing to do so. These companies also told consumers to pay them and, in turn, stop paying their auto lenders, reported F&I and Showroom magazine.

Auto Debt Consulting, for example, promised to reduce consumers’ monthly auto loan payments by 25 to 40 percent, but required up-front fees of between $350 and $799. On its Website, the company stated: “If you have engaged the services of Auto Debt Consulting for negotiating with your lender or bank on your behalf, and if for any reason you are dissatisfied with our services or we are unsuccessful in the negotiation process, we will provide a 100 percent money-back guarantee.”

In addition, the agency said one group of defendants told consumers to “hide [their] car[s] to avoid repossession.” The agency added that the promotional slogans used by the loan modification companies included “Join the thousands who have already saved,” “Consumer stimulus and bailout assistance,” and “Stop overpaying for a depreciating liability.” The defendants also gave toll-free numbers to consumers so telemarketers could sign them up for auto loan modifications, the FTC alleged.

The FTC asked the court to order the defendants to stop the alleged illegal conduct while the agency moves forward with the cases against the defendants.

The investigation comes on the heels of the FTC holding roundtable workshops to gather information about potential consumer protection issues that could arise during the sale, financing, or lease of vehicles. F&I contacted the FTC to find out what the agency is focusing on with regard to compliance in general, but Mark Eichorn, assistant director for the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, declined to provide specific details about any enforcement actions.

“Speaking generally, when we do compliance sweeps, investigations, etc., we use authorities granted the Commission,” Eichorn wrote in an e-mail. “Under Commission rules of practice, these actions are nonpublic until, for example, the commission votes to approve the issuance of a complaint or a complaint and consent agreement. As a matter of policy we neither confirm nor deny the existence of non-public law enforcement actions.”

Posted in Auto Industry NewsComments (0)

5 Dealers Targeted by FTC for Deceptive Ads


Five car dealers have agreed to Federal Trade Commission settlement orders that require them to stop running ads in which they promise to pay off a consumer’s trade-in no matter what the consumer owes on the vehicle.

The FTC charged that the ads, which ran on the dealers’ websites and on sites such as YouTube.com, deceived consumers into thinking they would no longer be responsible for paying off the loan balance on their trade-in, even if it exceeded the trade-in’s value. Instead, the dealers rolled the negative equity into the consumer’s new-vehicle loan or, in the case of one dealer, required consumers to pay it out of pocket, reported F&I and Showroom magazine.

The proposed settlements, reached as part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers in financial distress, bar all of the dealers from making similar deceptive representations in the future. The cases are the first of their kind brought by the FTC. The commission also issued a new consumer education publication titled “Negative Equity Ads and Auto-Trade-ins” to help consumers understand these types of ads.

“Buying a new car or truck is a major financial commitment, and the last thing consumers need is to be tricked into thinking that a dealer will pay off’ what they owe on their current vehicle when they really won’t,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The Federal Trade Commission is constantly on the lookout for potentially deceptive ads, and brings actions to stop them when appropriate.”

The dealers named in the FTC’s complaints are Billion Auto Inc. of Sioux Falls, S.D., Frank Myers AutoMaxx LLC of Winston-Salem, N.C., Connecticut-based dealers Key Hyundai of Manchester and Hyundai of Milford, which advertise jointly, and Ramey Motors Inc. of Princeton, West Virginia.

The complaints charge that the dealers’ representations that they will “pay off” what the consumers owe are false and misleading, and violate the FTC Act. In the case of Billion Auto Inc., the operation’s video promotion showed an inverted video of a car moving to depict a customer being upside down on their vehicle. The video then flips right-side up and displays the following tagline: “Credit upside down? Need a new car? Go to Billionpayoff.com. We want to pay off your car.”

Frank Myers AutoMaxx’s tagline for its advertisements read: “Uncle Frank wants to pay [your trade] off in full, no matter how much you owe.”

Key Hyundai and Hyundai of Milford used the following line to promote its dealerships: “I want your trade no matter how much you owe or what you’re driving. In fact I’ll pay off your trade when you upgrade to a nicer, newer vehicle.” Ramey Motors used a similar line in its ads.

In addition, the complaints in three of the cases allege violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)’s Regulation Z for failing to disclose certain credit-related terms. Complaints in two of the cases allege violations of the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA)’s Regulation M for failing to disclose certain lease-related terms.

The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges against the dealers are designed to prevent them from engaging in similar deceptive advertising practices in the future. First, each order prohibits the dealer from misrepresenting that it will pay the remaining loan balance on a consumer’s trade-in, so the consumer will have no further obligation for any amount of that loan. It also prohibits the dealer from misrepresenting any other facts related to leasing or financing a vehicle.

The proposed orders against Billion Auto, Key Hyundai, Hyundai of Milford, and Ramey Motors require these dealers to comply with TILA and Regulation Z, and to make clear and conspicuous disclosures when advertising certain terms related to issuing consumer credit. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate must be stated as an “annual percentage rate.”

In addition, the proposed orders against Billion Auto, Key Hyundai, and Hyundai of Milford require the dealers to clearly and conspicuously make all lease-related disclosures required by the CLA and Regulation M, including the monthly lease payment.

The proposed orders also require each of the dealers to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in their advertisements, and to provide copies of the order to certain employees. Finally, the dealers are required to file compliance reports with the FTC to show they are meeting the terms of the orders, which will expire in 20 years.

The misrepresentation alleged in these cases was one of the topics raised at the FTC’s 2011 public roundtables regarding consumer protection issues that may arise in the sale, financing or lease of motor vehicles. And the commission’s vote to issue the administrative complaints and accept the consent agreement packages containing the proposed consent orders for public comment was 4-0.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement packages in the Federal Register. The agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through April 16, 2012, after which the commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent orders final.

Posted in Auto Industry NewsComments (0)

TrueCar Unveils Compliance Strategy


SANTA MONICA — TrueCar Inc. announced a nationwide strategy to tackle regulatory compliance issues in an effort to demonstrate its commitment to state regulators, state dealer associations and its dealer partners.

The company also implemented a new flat-fee billing model in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It has also introduced a new billing model in certain states, adjusted how it advertises on the TrueCar website, established a TrueCar National Dealer Council, and launched a new consumer membership program, reported F&I and Showroom magazine.

The initiative was announced as part of the company’s “listening tour,” which involved visits with dealer groups, dealer associations and manufacturers across the nation, according to the company.

“These meetings have been incredibly constructive. We are in the business of innovation. As such, we have to embrace change as part of what we do,” said Scott Painter, founder and CEO of TrueCar. “The feedback we have received, both good and bad, will enable us to better serve our dealer partners, and the industry overall.

“The changes announced in Virginia are a great signal that collaboration with state regulators can result in a constructive outcome for consumers and dealers,” Painter added.

The company aims to reach 100 percent national compliance, according to TrueCar. In an effort to improve service, the company also has opted to voluntarily suspend service in Louisiana, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma. The company expects to have certain changes implemented in January.

“TrueCar’s dealer partners are central to our success and ensuring compliance is the foundation of TrueCar’s strategic commitment to dealers. We will not put our dealer partners in jeopardy,” said Stewart Easterby, executive vice president of TrueCar Inc.

In response to bird-dogging or brokering laws most states have, the company is shifting to a subscription-based billing model in those states where there is a potential issue. TrueCar also reiterated that it does not sell dealer DMS data and does not use dealer DMS data for any purpose other than matching vehicle sales to customer leads and monitoring performance to enhance TrueCar’s service to its dealer partners.

In addition to only collecting information with dealers’ permission, TrueCar announced it is working with dealers to enhance dealers’ control over access to and use of DMS data, including limiting the fields of data that are received from the DMS to those fields necessary to perform the sales matching function.

Changes will be made to the company’s website as well, said TrueCar officials. The company plans to develop new messages that focus on dealer attributes such as proximity, selection and service rather than simply price.

“Bottom line is we’re out listening and talking to the industry. What we heard is that dealers feel our ads focused on price and did not tell a positive enough story about our dealer partners,” said Stephen Hansen, president of TrueCar. “We’ve listened to their concerns and are making adjustments. Qualitative considerations that drive purchase other than price will have greater prominence in future ads.”

The company plans to introduce its first-ever National Dealer Council in the coming weeks, as the council will serve as a venue for TrueCar to hear dealer feedback on TrueCar’s products, processes and policies. The company also will enable statistical and other tools to identify dealers with extreme price outliers.

Based on OEM feedback, TrueCar plans to introduce a new consumer membership program that will provide dealer partners with higher quality introductions from the company, according to TrueCar.

Posted in Auto Industry NewsComments (0)

Colorado Puts the Brakes on TrueCar


After hitting an impasse with auto industry skeptics, TrueCar is facing another setback. The embattled company and its dealers were notified by the Colorado Department of Revenue that they could be in violation of five of the state’s advertising rules, according to a letter released on Dec. 15.

According to the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, TrueCar had initiated a meeting with the Department’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board in late November to find out if its service was in compliance with Colorado state laws. “That seemed to be a discovery meeting to tell the [state’s] Auto Industry Division (AID) how the TrueCar model works,” said Tim Jackson, Colorado Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) president.

The Department of Revenue’s legislative liaison, Mark Couch, stated that the AID is currently investigating a complaint that it received last week regarding TrueCar and could not comment until the investigation was completed, reported F&I and Showroom magazine.

Jackson said that his association was not involved in the meeting, but was notified soon after by the AID about a number of issues regarding TrueCar’s business relationship with dealers. Some of the topics mentioned in the AID’s letter include concerns over access to dealer’s inventory information, possible “bait and switch” situations and concerns regarding unlicensed sales activity.

The five advertising violations identified included failure to include vehicle stock numbers, using the word “invoice” in advertisements, small font size on disclaimers, failure to disclose all costs associated with purchasing a vehicle, and not listing an expiration date or time limit for offers.

The association’s new-car dealers were notified about the situation over the weekend. “I’ve been on the phone all day,” Jackson said. “Out of those 250 or so dealers, I’ve probably fielded between 25 to 35 calls so far.”

The AID’s letter also indicated that it has been instructed to “pursue licensure by TrueCar as either a Used Motor Vehicle Dealer or to have individuals associated with TrueCar licensed as salespersons or both.”

The reason for this, Jackson adds, is that anyone who is negotiating the price of a car in Colorado needs to be licensed to do so.

Though the alleged violations originated from TrueCar’s materials, the AID states that any dealer using the company’s services to promote and list vehicles will ultimately be responsible for any violations of the state’s compliance rules.

“It’s up to the dealers who they do business with and we don’t tell them who to do business with or not to do business with,” Jackson says. “But it’s our role to help them stay in compliance.”

Group 1 Automotive was recently reported to have ended its business relationship with TrueCar, but did not immediately return F&I and Showroom’s requests for comment. Last week, Honda confirmed that it warned its dealers over the summer that marketing dollars will be withheld if dealers violate the company’s stated advertising guidelines. A company spokesman, however, denied that Honda is prohibiting its dealers from using TrueCar.

Posted in Auto Industry NewsComments (0)

Teenage Girls and the Telemarketing Sales Rule


What do teenage girls have to do with the Telemarketing Sales Rule? More than you might think. I’m a lawyer with five daughters 18 years old and under, so I know of what I speak.

As you may recall, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) went into effect in 2003 to both implement the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and preserve the Holy Golden Silence. For Boomers like me, the Holy Golden Silence was that period between approximately 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. when nuclear families sat down together to eat dinners lovingly prepared by mothers wearing pearls. Polite people simply did not call other polite people during the Holy Golden Silence. Desecration of the Holy Golden Silence elicited scorn from my father and energetic violations of the Second Commandment.

Telemarketers, of course, are not polite people. They specialized in calling during the Holy Golden Silence precisely because they knew Boomers and their spawn would be sitting near a wall-mounted telephone whose handset was attached to its base via an actual cord.

And this is where teenage girls enter the equation. My daughters have never seen a functional wall-mounted telephone in their lives. Honest. Helping one such daughter with her homework recently, I was actually asked which was invented first, the fax machine or fire? (Answer: Fire. Your grandfather invented it). They live in a wireless world.

So when we sit together to eat dinner, a tradition still staunchly defended at das Gantherhof, a ringing telephone is not the issue. Rather, it is text messaging, to which my daughters are all addicted. During our Holy Golden Silence, I need to banish the iPhones. They text their friends from under the table. They text “pls ps the btr” to their sisters. They may transmit mutant thumbs to my grandchildren.

In short, technology has overcome the TSR. No one calls anymore – or so it seems. If our landline phone rings, we know it’s not someone we want to talk to – people we want to talk to have our cell numbers.

But not all dealerships are technology forward. Some are still rumored to use fax machines. So for those that still use telephone marketing, a brief overview of the Rule may be in order. Here goes.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gives consumers a choice about whether they want to receive most telemarketing calls. Consumers are able to put their phone numbers on a national “Do Not Call” registry. It is illegal for most telemarketers or sellers to call a number listed on the registry. Because a dealership may want to call actual or prospective customers, it is important to know when one may or may not do so.

The TSR – often called the Do Not Call Rule – applies to any effort to sell goods or services through interstate phone calls. This includes dealerships that solicit consumers. It also includes outside telemarketers who solicit sales on behalf of dealerships.

Dealerships and the telemarketers they use are required to search the Do Not Call registry at least quarterly and drop from their call lists the phone numbers of consumers who have registered. The FTC maintains a website that provides this information: https://telemarketing.donotcall.gov/.

A consumer who receives a telemarketing call despite being on the registry will be able to file a complaint with the FTC, either online or by calling a toll-free number. Violators could be fined up to $11,000 per incident.

Fortunately, there are some important exceptions to the TSR. In fact, if it is a dealership’s policy to only contact consumers that fall within an exception to the Rule, the dealership may never need to actually compare a consumer’s name to the names on the Do Not Call registry.

A dealership or telemarketer may call a consumer with whom it has an established business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer’s last purchase, delivery, or payment – even if the consumer’s number is on the Do Not Call registry. This means that dealerships are free to call a customer for 18 months following delivery of a vehicle in a cash transaction, or for 18 months after the last payment in a financed or lease transaction.

This 18 month period resets every time a customer makes another purchase or payment. Thus, if a customer made his last car payment 19 months ago and he is listed on the Do Not Call registry, a dealership cannot make an unsolicited sales call to that person. But if he gets his transmission replaced at that dealership, a new 18 month period is established.

In addition, a dealership may call a consumer for up to three months after the consumer makes an inquiry or submits an application to the dealership. What this means is that a dealership is free to call a potential customer for up to three months after a sales visit to that dealership, or after taking a test drive. And if a consumer has given a dealership written permission, that dealership may call the consumer even if the consumer’s number is on the Do Not Call registry.

But beware: if a consumer asks a dealership not to call, the dealership may not call, even if there is an established business relationship. Indeed, a dealership or its telemarketers may not call a consumer – regardless of whether the consumer’s number is on the registry – if the consumer has asked to be put on the dealership’s internal Do Not Call list.

Some states have their own Do Not Call registries, so a dealership would do well to check with its local counsel to determine if these laws increase its obligations with respect to calling customers.

Dealerships and their telemarketers are required to transmit their telephone number, and if possible, their name, to consumers’ caller ID services where it is technologically possible. Transmission of callers’ ID information allows consumers to know who is calling (and, presumably, ignore the call).

The following provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule also apply to dealerships:

  • Dealerships and telemarketers may only call consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., local time.
  • Dealerships and telemarketers must promptly identify themselves as a seller and explain that they’re making a sales call before pitching a product or service.
  • Dealerships and telemarketers still must disclose all material information about the goods or services they are offering and the terms of the sale. Misrepresenting any terms or conditions of the sale is prohibited.

To be safe, a dealership should assume that every person who visits or does business with the dealership has signed up for the Do Not Call registry. Then, only call those people if they fall within one of the exceptions to the Do Not Call regulations. If you aren’t sure that an exception applies, you should compare the consumer’s name to those on the Do Not Call registry.

Finally, remember that the Telemarketing Sales Rule primarily applies to sales calls. A dealership is never prohibited from contacting customers to inform them, for example, of recall or other safety-related information.

But to return to our point of departure, technology is moving past telephone solicitations. My daughters and their generation are immune to its fading charms. The real issue for the younger set addresses e-mail and text solicitations: The CAN-SPAM Act.

Yeah, I think I smell another article…

Posted in Guest EditorialComments (1)

Obama Nominates Former Ohio AG to Lead New Bureau


WASHINGTON — President Obama has named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as his nomination for director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by the passage of the Dodd Frank Act last year. The nomination will require Senate confirmation, which, by all account, will be a problem.

Cordray previously served as Ohio’s treasurer and as head of the CFPB’s enforcement division for the last six months under current interim director and agency architect Elizabeth Warren.

During the announcement, President Obama discussed Dodd-Frank’s provisions, which included making taxpayer-funded bailouts illegal, Wall Street reforms and stronger consumer protection rules.

“Already, the agency is starting to do a whole bunch of things that are going to be important for consumers — making sure loan contracts and credit card terms are simpler and written in plain English,” the president said. “Already, thanks to the leadership of the bureau, we’re seeing men and women in uniform who are getting more protections against fraud and deception when it comes to financial practices.”

In her White House blog post announcing the nomination, Warren described Cordray as someone that would be a “strong leader” for the CFPB. She added that he is someone with “a proven track record of fighting for families during his time as head of the CFPB enforcement division, as attorney general of Ohio and throughout his career.”

“He was one of the first senior executives I recruited for the agency, and his hard work and deep commitment make it clear he can make many important contributions in leading it,” Warren continued in her blog post. “Rich is smart, he is tough and he will make a stellar director. I am very pleased for him and very pleased for the CFPB.”

In this month’s Legal column, Tom Hudson, partner at the law firm of Hudson Cook LLP, talked about the many challenges the CFPB is facing as it gets set to assume regulatory authority on July 21. The Republican-controlled Senate has already said it will block President Obama’s nomination. Republican lawmakers also have introduced several proposals to reduce the bureau’s power and independence.

Because of efforts put forth by the National Automobile Dealers Association, dealers were largely excluded from the CFPB’s oversight. However, the Dodd-Frank Act granted the FTC new rulemaking powers as it pertains to dealers. The agency is now hosting a series of roundtables to determine where it should focus its attention when it assumes its new powers. The next roundtable is scheduled for Aug. 2-3 at St. Mary’s University School of Law.

Posted in Auto Industry NewsComments (0)

Page 1 of 3123