Bans on all products without benefit. Dealerships would no longer be able to sell “nitrogen-filled tire related-products or services that contain no more nitrogen than naturally exists in the air” or coverage duplicating the vehicle’s warranty. Guaranteed asset protection (“GAP”), which covers the difference between a loan balance and the vehicle’s cash value in the event of a total loss, also would be forbidden “if the consumer’s vehicle or neighborhood is excluded from coverage or the loan-to-value ratio would result in the consumer not benefiting financially from the product or service.”
Posting a list of all optional add-ons and their prices online. Any ads would have to offer a website link to that list. If the price of the F&I products vary, dealerships could instead post a range “the typical consumer would pay.” Add-ons are defined as anything sold by a dealership not provided by the automaker, including intangible F&I coverage.
Bans on misleading pricing advertising.
Disclosure and declination in writing of the “Cash Price without Optional Add-ons.” The customer would have to be told the price of the car, with and without financing, were they to decline all optional additions and F&I coverages. If the customer agrees to pay something different, both they and a dealership manager must sign a document saying so.
“Express, Informed Consent” on F&I products and other add-ons. It would have to be “an affirmative act communicating unambiguous assent” and go beyond “a signed or initialed document, by itself” or “prechecked boxes,” the FTC said.
I don’t see any legal way to ban ADM. While it has good intentions, all the dealers need to do now is put the ADM on an alarm or protection coatings so I don’t see this changing much
I am all in favor of cheap cars but discounts were always a form of ADM. They just were in the buyers favor. If we are talking about mark-ing up, then why not discounts? Its a ‘slippery slope’
The proposed ban prevents the dealer from making a profit off of something that has absolutely no benefit to the customer (or has no benefit to the customers in certain situations) and requires greater transparency.
When a dealer offers a discount, it’s not like they’re not fooling themselves or need to disclose the the discount to themselves, so the two situations are not at all comparable (IMHO).
Also, businesses don’t really qualify for consumer protections, for obvious reasons.
Earth’s natural atmosphere is approximately 78% nitrogen to begin with. 100% nitrogen DOES have a benefit in certain applications as an inert gas, but is it worth any massive premium? And are they actually giving you 100% Nitrogen? It would be funny to see them have to prove it. I work in chemical/pharmaceutical processing and we use MASSIVE amounts of 100% nitrogen daily to inert vessels, blow lines clean, etc. I really doubt that it’s costing us per day what they charge one dopey customer to fill four tires.
I know it’s mostly bogus, just that if it’s less than 78% Nitrogen than it’s a fraud to begin with lol. I have a reservation on an Integra that they won’t remove the $199 Nitrogen out of $1k accessories with no ADM.
I’d like a disclosure for markup added. So many people don’t realize that $350/ month civic LX deal with a 15K buyout end of lease is heavily marked up when the dealer claims no hidden fees in the ad.
I seriously doubt this will make so much of a dent. Not to demonize the FTC, really, but it is a bureaucratic agency and like every other bureaucracy, it is incompetent and slow.
Until franchise laws are done away with, these shenanigans are here to stay.
Just imagine: BestBuy pulling such sleazy tactics to sell iPhones. You think Apple would put up with that ?
?