Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The decision came in response to a petition filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), challenging the procedural validity of the rule. The petitioners argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS Rule. They also contended that the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.

On January 3, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a press release announcing that accessiBe Inc. and accessiBe Ltd. (collectively, accessiBe) agreed to pay $1 million to settle allegations of deceptive advertising practices in violation of the FTC Act. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleged that accessiBe misrepresented the artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities of its website accessibility tool, accessWidget, to make websites compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The FTC further alleged that accessiBe paid for reviews on third-party websites that were formatted to appear as the opinions of impartial authors and publications and failed to disclose material connections to such online reviewers.

In a significant enforcement action, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Illinois Attorney General have reached a $20 million settlement with Leader Automotive Group and its Canadian parent company, AutoCanada, over allegations of widespread consumer fraud. If entered, this settlement will be the largest monetary judgment the FTC has secured against an auto dealer.

On December 17, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the release of its final Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, also known as the “Junk Fee Rule”, which aims to address so-called bait-and-switch pricing tactics and other deceptive practices in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries. This rule, codified at 16 CFR Part 464, specifically targets practices that purportedly hide the total price of an item or service and misrepresent fees and will go into effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

On December 10, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is distributing more than $540,000 in refunds to victims of an abusive debt collector group. The debt collectors allegedly threatened consumers with lawsuits or arrest for debts that they might not have even owed.

Earlier this week, we discussed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final amendments to the Negative Option Rule, now retitled the Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs. These amendments, which are set to take effect 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are purportedly aimed at stopping deceptive and unfair practices in negative option marketing. However, the rule has now drawn a legal challenge.

In March 2023, we discussed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at making it easier for consumers to cancel recurring subscriptions and memberships. The proposed rule was part of the FTC’s review of its Negative Option Rule, which sought to broaden its scope. Publication of the NPRM resulted in more

On October 9, 2024, at 4 p.m. CT, the Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the ongoing litigation challenging the FTC’s Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) have raised significant procedural and data-based objections to the rule, which purportedly aims to curb deceptive sales practices and eliminate “junk fees” in the car-buying process.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of Arizona announced a joint action against Coulter Motor Company, an Arizona-based motor vehicle dealership, and its former general manager, for allegedly engaging in deceptive pricing practices and discriminatory financing treatment of Latino consumers. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The defendants have agreed to a $2.6 million settlement, most of which will be used to provide refunds to affected consumers.