Notifications & Messages

Jared Hamilton
From: Jared Hamilton
Hey - It’s time to join the thousands of other dealer professionals on DrivingSales. Create an account so you can get full access to the articles, discussions and people that are shaping the future of the automotive industry.
Jim Radogna

Jim Radogna President

Exclusive Blog Posts

How SEO Impacts the Service Department

How SEO Impacts the Service Department

Digital marketing in the dealership often is viewed and conducted solely from a sales perspective. But the service department, often called the "backb…

What 89% of salespeople are failing to do...

What 89% of salespeople are failing to do...

  According to Dale Carnegie only 11% of salespeople ask for referrals. We all know how valuable referrals are but when it comes time to ask for a …

Why Your Online Shoppers Don’t Take the Bait

Why Your Online Shoppers Don’t Take the Bait

You think you’re dangling an enticing lure in front of your customers’ eyes. You plan to set the hook and reel them in. But what you don&rs…

Click-to-Call [Infographic]

Click-to-Call [Infographic]

  Most dealers understand the importance of making it easy for customers and prospects to find contact information. Websites often have prominent &…

Quick Tips for Improving Dealership Culture

Quick Tips for Improving Dealership Culture

Car dealers have a terrible reputation. It's such a negative experience for so many that people are electing to make a major purchase like a vehicle fr…

Why is the FTC Messing With Dealers?

Since the news broke earlier this week about the FTC citing 5 auto dealers for deceptive advertising, I’ve been asked a number of questions by folks in the industry. Here’s my take on the situation:

What’s the big deal about advertising that the dealership will pay off a trade-in no matter what the customer owes? It’s a true statement.

The problem is not so much what the ads say, but what they don’t say. As far as regulators are concerned, if an ad doesn’t explicitly state that any negative equity will be added to the loan balance, it’s deceptive. While it may seem obvious to us that the customer is responsible for negative equity, some consumers (and lawmakers) apparently think that these advertisements imply that the dealer will buy the trade for the amount the customer owes, regardless of its real value.

Some basic principles that regulatory agencies consider are 1) advertising is considered deceptive if the advertisement has a “tendency or capacity to mislead the public”; 2) if an ad is deemed deceptive, an advertiser has liability regardless of whether there was intent to deceive and; 3) statements susceptible to both a misleading and a truthful interpretation will likely be construed to be deceptive.

We always fully disclose negative equity on our contracts and leases, why isn’t that good enough?

If regulators feel that the first contact with a consumer is secured by deception, a violation may occur even though the true facts are made known to the buyer before he or she enters into a purchase or lease. Since statements and representations in advertisements are evaluated based on their tendency to deceive, no actual harm to consumers need occur for there to be a violation.

Dealers have been using this type of advertising for years – did the FTC recently change the rules?

No, these types of incomplete statements about paying off trade-ins have been considered deceptive for a long time by both federal and state regulators, so this is nothing new. Bear in mind that the fact that others were, or are, engaged in like practices is not considered a defense.

As to why the Feds decided to take action against dealers now - your guess is as good as mine. The FTC has been threatening to step up enforcement against dealers for the last year or so, but to be honest; I’ve been a bit skeptical. The Feds have traditionally gone after bigger fish and left car dealers to state regulators. So, while this action may just be a flash in the pan, it can also be a major game changer.

How do we avoid this happening to us? I mean, if the regulators decide to go on a witch hunt, they’re going to get you one way or another.

I disagree. Again, the violations the FTC cited are not new or surprising to anyone who understands advertising regulations. If you have ever read or listened to my ramblings in the past you know that I have a tendency to harp on two issues - Education and Due Diligence.  Please forgive me for once again repeating myself, but this is important:

Protect yourself by doing the following:

  • Ensure that any member of your staff involved with advertising is properly trained in all applicable regulations.
  • Never assume that your ad agencies or vendors know, or are following, the rules. If you write the check, you’re responsible.
  • If you’re not sure, don’t guess! Have your advertisements reviewed, and edited if necessary, by someone knowledge before publication (this should done for all of your advertising including websites, YouTube, social media, etc.). It may cost a few bucks, but it’s a small price to pay.
Dennis Galbraith
Fantastic post Jim. The candid truth is exactly what the dealer community needs at this time.
Jeremy Alicandri
@Jim - If service advisors are using deceptive practices to convince customers to purchase unnecessary products (e.g. wheel alignments), could this constitute a violation? Or is it too hard to prove since it's not in writing (e.g. newspaper)?
Jim Radogna
Absolutely Jeremy. In fact, "overselling" is one of the most commonly cited violations against repair shops. It can be tricky to prove, but if enough complaints are lodged, regulators have been known to set up sting operations with undercover "customers". I just finished an article on service department compliance for next month's Auto Dealer Monthly. I'll message you a copy. Let me know if you have any questions.
Jeremy Alicandri
Thanks Jim. How does the FTC choose what dealers to investigate? I imagine they are only looking for dealers that are reported directly to them?
Jim Radogna
Typically dealers would be investigated by state authorities for service-related violations. I don't think the FTC would get involved unless it was a national chain (e.g. Midas), although you never know what they're going to do next!

 Unlock all of the community & features  Join Now