FTC explains new law involving credit freezes and fraud alerts


The Federal Trade Commission announced consumers — especially individuals who are trying to repair their credit profiles and are concerned about identity theft or data breaches — can freeze their credit and place one-year fraud alerts for free.

Under the new Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the FTC explained consumers in some states — those who previously had to pay fees to freeze their credit — will no longer have to do so.

Officials noted that a credit freeze, also known as a security freeze, restricts access to a consumer’s credit file, making it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in the consumer’s name. The new law also allows parents to freeze for free the credit of their children who are under 16, while guardians, conservators and those with a valid power of attorney can get a free freeze for their dependents.

In addition, the FTC said the new law extends the duration of a fraud alert on a consumer’s credit report from 90 days to one year. A fraud alert requires businesses that check a consumer’s credit to get the consumer’s approval before opening a new account.

As part of its work to implement the new law, the Federal Trade Commission has updated its IdentityTheft.gov website with credit bureau information in an attempt to make it easier for consumers to take advantage of the new provisions outlined in the law.

To place a credit freeze on their accounts, consumers will need to all three nationwide credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. Whether consumers ask for a freeze online or by phone, the credit bureau must put the freeze in place within one business day.

When consumers request to lift the freeze by phone or online, the credit bureaus must take that action within one hour. (If consumers make these requests by mail, the agency must place or lift the freeze within three business days.)

To place a fraud alert, consumers need only one of the three credit bureaus, which will notify the other two bureaus.

The regulator insisted credit freezes and fraud alerts are two important steps consumers can take to help prevent identity theft. Identity theft was the second biggest category of consumer complaints reported to the FTC in 2017 — making up nearly 14 percent of all the consumer complaints filed last year.

Consumers who believe they have been the victim of identity theft can report it and receive a personalized recovery plan at .

FTC shuts down websites selling fake pay stubs, other documents


Here is some good news for auto finance companies involving ongoing concern about fraudulent paper ending up in their portfolios.

The operators of websites that sold fake documents used to facilitate identity theft and other frauds have agreed to permanently shut down their businesses as part of separate settlements with the Federal Trade Commission.

In separate cases filed by the FTC, the commission alleged that Katrina Moore, Steven Simmons and George Jiri Strnad II and their affiliated companies operated websites that sold customers a variety of fake financial and other documents — such as pay stubs, income tax forms and medical statements — that can be used to facilitate identity theft, tax fraud and other crimes.

“The sale of fake documents makes it easy for identity thieves and scammers to ply their trade,” said Andrew Smith, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This action demonstrates the FTC’s determination to stop those who help people to commit identity theft and fraud.”

Identity theft was the second biggest category of consumer complaints reported to the FTC in 2017 — accounting for nearly 14 percent of all the consumer complaints made last year. Credit card fraud was the most common type of identity theft reported by consumers in 2017, followed by tax fraud.

The complaint against Moore and her business, Innovative Paycheck Solutions, alleges that she promoted the sale of a variety of financial documents on the website she operated, FakePayStubOnline.com. In addition to fake pay stubs, these documents included bank statements and profit-and-loss statements.

The site stated that the documents look authentic and sold for as little as $40 for a fake pay stub to more than $150 for fake tax returns. The site offered visitors the choice to customize their documents and to edit real bank statements, touting its “Custom Fake Pay Stub” and “Fake Pay Stubs Online, Quick, Easy, Accurate Pay Stubs.”

In its complaint against Simmons and his business, Integrated Flight Solutions, the FTC alleged he operated the NoveltyExcuses.com website from 2013 until October 2017, where for $19.95 he sold a variety of financial, identity and medical documents including pay stubs, auto insurance cards, utility and cable bills, doctor’s excuses and medical absence reports.

Like Moore’s website, Simmons’ NoveltyExcuses.com advertised that the documents the site offered were fake but looked authentic, saying it could provide “Quality Authentic Fake Forms! Proven to Work!”

From about 2014 through March of this year, the FTC said Strnad operated similar websites, including PayStubDirect.com and PaycheckStubOnline.com, that offered fake pay stubs, tax forms and bank statements, according to the FTC’s complaint. His iVerifyMe website sold job verification services in which he claimed to verify employment and income for customers, the FTC alleged.

As with the other defendants, the regulator indicated Strnad’s websites advertised that the documents were fake but looked “authentic.” At the same time, his iVerifyMe site advertised that it could verify the employment claims made using the fake pay stubs offered from his other websites, according to the FTC.

The FTC noted in all three complaints that fake financial and identification documents can be used to commit identity theft and loan fraud. Identity thieves can use fake documents to apply for credit cards along with stolen personal information. When an identity thief fails to pay the credit card bill, the victim’s credit suffers.

The sites offered by the defendants claimed that the fake documents were for “novelty” and “entertainment” purposes but failed to clearly and prominently mark such documents as being for such purposes and did not state on the documents themselves that they were fake, according to the complaints.

The agency alleged Moore, Simmons and Strnad violated the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair practices.

As part of her proposed settlement with the FTC, Moore is permanently prohibited from advertising, marketing or selling any fake documents or services and providing any means to others to make misrepresentations about an individual’s identity, finances, residency, taxes or employment. She also has agreed to pay $169,000, all of which is suspended due to her inability to pay.

In his proposed settlement, Simmons agreed to similar conduct prohibitions and to pay $15,000, which also has been suspended due to his inability to pay. The full amount will become due if either defendant is later found to have misrepresented their finances. Strnad agreed to similar conduct restrictions in his proposed settlement and to pay $133,777.

The FTC voted 5-0 to approve the three complaints and stipulated final orders. The FTC filed the proposed order with Moore in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, while the proposed order with Simmons was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division and the proposed order with Strnad was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

FTC charges 4 dealers with illegally enhancing credit applications


Embellishing “stips” to enhance the figures sent to finance company underwriting departments landed a quartet of dealerships in trouble with a top federal regulator.

This week, the Federal Trade Commission charged a group of four dealers operating in Arizona and New Mexico, near the border of the Navajo Nation, with a range of illegal activities, including falsifying consumers’ income and down payment information on vehicle financing applications and misrepresenting important financial terms in vehicle advertisements.

Officials pointed out this development is the FTC’s first action alleging income falsification by dealers.

The complaint also names the dealerships’ owner and manager, Richard Berry, as a defendant; and owner and president, Linda Tate, as a relief defendant.

According to the complaint, since at least 2014, Tate’s Auto has sought to increase its sales by falsifying consumers’ monthly income and down payments on financing applications and contracts submitted to third-party financing companies. The four dealerships named in the complaint are Tate’s Auto Center of Winslow, Tate’s Automotive, Tate Ford-Lincoln-Mercury and Tate’s Auto Center of Gallup.

The FTC charges that, during the sales process, Tate’s Auto asked consumers to provide personal information — including their name, address and monthly income — and told consumers they would submit the information to financing companies. According to the complaint, however, instead of using consumers’ actual information, in many cases Tate’s Auto falsely inflated the numbers, making it appear that consumers had higher monthly incomes than they really did.

Tate’s Auto often inflated the amount of a consumer’s down payment as well, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges that Tate’s Auto representatives often prevented consumers from reviewing the income and down payment information on the forms, such as by rushing consumers through the process of reviewing and signing the financing applications, having consumers fill out the forms over the phone and failing to give them the income and down payment portion of the application before they signed.

In other cases, the FTC said Tate’s Auto allegedly altered financing documents after consumers signed them, without their knowledge. Such consumers, the FTC alleges, often were approved for financing based on the false information Tate’s Auto provided.

As a result, financing companies extended credit to consumers who defaulted at a higher rate than qualified buyers. Many of the affected consumers are members of the Navajo Nation, according to the FTC.

The complaint also alleges that Tate’s Auto’s advertising deceived consumers about the nature and terms of financing or leasing offers. For example, Tate’s Auto allegedly advertised discounts and incentives to consumers without adequately disclosing limitations or restrictions that would prevent many customers from qualifying for them.

Finally, the FTC alleges that Tate’s Auto’s social media ads violated federal law by failing to disclose required terms.

The complaint charges Tate’s Auto with violating the FTC Act, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA). The FTC is seeking an injunction barring the defendants from such practices in the future.

According to the FTC, acting as owner of the four dealerships, Barry formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in Tate’s Auto’s allegedly illegal conduct.

The FTC charged that Tate has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the other defendants, including funds directly connected to the alleged unlawful conduct.

The commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

“Buying a car is one of the biggest purchases consumers make. When consumers tell an auto dealer how much they make and how much they can pay upfront, the dealer can’t turn those facts into fiction,” said Andrew Smith, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

“The FTC expects auto dealers to be honest with consumers from the first advertisement to the final purchase,” Smith added.

The FTC reiterated that it files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the regulator that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

New FTC leadership arrives as Simons returns


New leadership officially took control of the Federal Trade Commission.

Earlier this week, Joseph Simons was sworn in as chairman of the FTC.

President Trump named Simons, a Republican, to a term on the commission that expires Sept. 25, 2024, and designated him as chairman.

Simons was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 26.

“It is a great honor to lead the FTC, an agency that plays a key role in protecting American consumers and promoting competition in the U.S. economy,” Simons said. “I want to express my gratitude to acting chairman (Maureen) Ohlhausen for her outstanding work as head of the commission for the last 15 months, and for her continued service as a commissioner. I am excited to work with such an accomplished group of incoming commissioners, as well.”

Simons noted that, under Ohlhausen’s leadership, the FTC continued vigorous competition and consumer protection enforcement, including in the high tech and health care arenas. The agency brought more than 18 privacy and data security cases, including Lenovo, V-Tech and Ashley Madison.

Ohlhausen also strengthened the agency’s understanding of informational injuries and advocacy for occupational licensing reform through the development of her signature economic liberty initiative and furthered many process and regulatory reforms.

In addition to Simons, the Senate confirmed four others who were nominated by Trump to serve as commissioners. Three of them, Republican Noah Phillips, and Democrats Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Rohit Chopra, are expected to be sworn in later this week.

The fourth, Republican Christine Wilson, was appointed to fill the seat currently held by Ohlhausen, and she will take office when Ohlhausen leaves the agency.

Prior to becoming FTC chairman, Simons was a partner and co-chair of the Antitrust Group at the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Simons has held two previous positions at the commission. He served as director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition between 2001 and 2003, during which he was responsible for overseeing the re-invigoration of the FTC’s non-merger enforcement program.

In an earlier stint at the commission in the 1980s, Simons served as the FTC’s Associate Director for Mergers and the Assistant Director for Evaluation. Simons earned the FTC’s Award for Meritorious Service.

FTC continues fight against illegal phone calls


While phone calls remain an important tool for collectors and skip-tracers at auto finance companies, the Federal Trade Commission told the U.S. Senators last week that the agency “is using every tool at its disposal to fight” illegal robocalls.

Appearing at a hearing hosted by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Lois Greisman, associate director for the FTC’s division of marketing practices, told lawmakers about the most recent efforts regarding unwanted phone calls that aren’t associated with attempts to collect legitimate debt.

“Illegal robocalls remain a significant consumer protection problem because they repeatedly disturb consumers’ privacy and frequently use fraud and deception to pitch goods and services, leading to significant economic harm,” Greisman said. “Illegal robocalls are also frequently used by criminal impostors posing as trusted officials or companies.

“Consumers are justifiably frustrated,” continued Greisman, who indicated the FTC received more than 4.5 million robocall complaints during the 2017 fiscal year.

“The FTC is using every tool at its disposal to fight these illegal calls,” she went on to say.

Greisman noted that since the FTC began enforcing the Do Not Call (DNC) provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the FTC has brought 135 enforcement actions seeking civil penalties, restitution for victims of telemarketing scams and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains against 439 corporations and 356 individuals. As a result of the 125 cases resolved thus far, the FTC has collected more than $121 million in monetary relief for defrauded consumers and civil penalties.

The FTC said actively coordinates with law enforcement partners, technical experts, industry and other stakeholders; for example, providing input to the National Association of Attorneys General Do Not Call working group. The FTC added that also works closely with federal law enforcement partners to conduct robocall enforcement “sweeps.”

In addition, last month, the FTC and FCC co-hosted a Joint Policy Forum to discuss the regulatory and enforcement challenges posed by illegal robocalls, including Caller ID blocking and “neighbor spoofing.”

And as opposed to collectors trying to reach delinquent vehicle installment contract holders, Greisman emphasized what the FTC recommends regarding robocalls deemed to be illegal.

“In the case of robocalls, the FTC’s message to consumers is simple: if you answer a call and hear an unwanted recorded sales message — hang up. Period,” she told Senators.

FTC and FCC hosting 2 events to examine illegal phone calls


As opposed to the legitimate collections efforts put forth by dealerships, finance companies and their service providers, federal regulators are looking to curb unwanted phone calls that are out to swindle consumers.

Two upcoming events will highlight cooperative efforts by two agencies to combat illegal calls and promote innovative solutions to protect consumers

The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission announced two upcoming events aimed at furthering the fight against illegal robocalls and caller ID spoofing. The agencies will co-host a Policy Forum later this month and a Technology Expo in April.

Unwanted calls — including illegal robocalls, spoofed calls and telemarketing — are a major source of complaints to both the FTC and FCC. Under acting FTC chairman Maureen Ohlhausen and FCC chairman Ajit Pai, the agencies have combated this consumer problem through numerous policy-making efforts and strong enforcement actions.

“Consumers are fed up with illegal robocalls that disturb their privacy and often pitch scams,” Ohlhausen said. “We’re going to expand our fight against this scourge through initiatives like the upcoming Technology Expo and Policy Forum, which amplify our impact through close coordination with the FCC and other partners.”

“Scam robocalls and deceptive spoofing are real threats to American consumers, and they are the number one consumer complaint at the FCC,” Pai added. “We’re committed to confronting this problem using every tool we have. I’m pleased to announce these efforts in our continued work with the FTC to protect consumers.”

On March 23, the two agencies will co-host a Policy Forum at FCC headquarters to discuss the regulatory challenges posed by illegal robocalls and what the FTC and FCC are doing to both protect consumers and encourage the development of private-sector solutions. The live video and other information related to this event .

On April 23, the FTC and FCC will also co-host a Technology Expo for consumers at the Pepco Edison Place Gallery in Washington, D.C. This event will feature technologies, devices, and applications to minimize or eliminate the illegal robocalls consumers receive. The FTC and FCC said they have worked closely with phone companies, tech innovators, and others to find solutions for consumers to the problems of illegal robocalls and malicious spoofing.

More information on this Expo, including how innovators can seek to participate, .

In combating abusive and fraudulent calls through early 2018, the FTC’s enforcement actions have resulted in 134 lawsuits against 789 companies and individuals alleged to be responsible for placing billions of unwanted telemarketing calls to consumers. The FTC has been awarded judgments totaling over $1.5 billion and has collected over $121 million from these violators.

Under Pai, the FCC proposed more than $200 million in fines last year alone for apparent illegal spoofing by telemarketers in first-of-their-kind cases under the Truth in Caller ID Act.

In addition, the FCC has adopted new rules to allow phone companies to block robocalls that are likely to be illegal, such as those purporting to be from non-existent numbers. The agency is also seeking public input on ways to help authenticate caller ID information and reduce unwanted calls to reassigned phone numbers.

FTC Act civil penalties rise based on inflation


In combing through the Federal Register this week, the National Automobile Dealers Association found that the Federal Trade Commission recently announced increases to various civil penalties amounts within its jurisdiction to adjust for inflation.

In particular, that could be associated with collections and repossessions. The regulator stated that the penalties for violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act — which can include unfair or deceptive acts or practices — will increase.

The FTC indicated the penalties would jump from $40,654 to $41,484.

also mentioned that knowing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act would increase, too, climbing from $3,817 to $3,895.

The regulator reiterated that it made the moves by “implementing adjustments to the civil penalty amounts within its jurisdiction to account for inflation, as required by law.”

The actions adjusted the figures since the FTC made its most recent update last January.

The FTC certainly keeps a watchful eye on collections activities such as asking for comments about its current rules.

FTC reaches settlement with Texas Toyota dealer over deceptive ads in Spanish newspaper


The complexities of advertising finance terms in a language other than English landed a dealership in regulatory problems with the Federal Trade Commission.

Cowboy AG, a Dallas company doing business as Cowboy Toyota and Cowboy Scion, recently agreed to settle FTC charges that it deceptively advertised financing and leasing terms in ads placed in a regional Spanish-language newspaper.

The FTC’s administrative complaint charged that Cowboy Toyota ran full-page Spanish-language ads claiming that consumers could buy or lease a vehicle at certain favorable terms that were prominently stated in Spanish in the ads, with material limitations to those terms provided only in fine-print English at the bottom of the ads. The complaint alleged the dealerships violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting many claims, including that:

—No down payment was required.

—The advertised low monthly payments were available to consumers who financed their purchases.

—The advertised interest rates, monthly payments and other terms were available to consumers with bad credit.

—Certain new 2016 Toyotas were available for purchase at the time of the ads in 2017.

According to the FTC, Cowboy Toyota’s misrepresentation of the cost of purchasing or leasing vehicles, qualifications or restrictions for financing or leasing vehicles, and the availability of cars violated the FTC Act. Officials indicated the dealership also failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose credit or lease terms they are required to state under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) when they touted certain “triggering” terms of the credit or lease, such as the monthly payment.

Officials believe the proposed order settling the FTC’s charges will ensure that Cowboy Toyota does not engage in the deceptive conduct alleged in the commission’s complaint in the future.

First, the order prohibits the dealership from misrepresenting the cost of financing or buying a vehicle, including terms related to the amount or percentage of the total price needed for a down payment, the number of payments required over the full financing term, and the amount of any payment or repayment obligation over the loan term, including any balloon payment.

Next, the order prohibits Cowboy Toyota from misrepresenting the cost of leasing a vehicle, including the total amount due at lease inception, the down payment required, the acquisition fee, any other payments required at the beginning of the lease and the amount of all monthly payments over the term of the lease. The order also requires the dealership to accurately represent any qualifications or restrictions on a consumer’s ability to obtain offered financing or lease terms, including restrictions based on their credit history.

Furthermore, the order instructs Cowboy Toyota to clearly and conspicuously disclose all financing and lease terms in its ads, as well as all related qualifications or restrictions. In addition, if most consumers likely will not qualify for the credit rate advertised, the order requires the dealership to clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact. It also requires that if a representation is made in one language, any material limitations must also be made in the same language.

Also, the order prohibits Cowboy Toyota from misrepresenting the number of vehicles, makes, or models that are available for purchase or lease, and bars them from violating TILA and its implementing Regulation Z by requiring clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding a variety of purchase or lease terms, including the percentage of any down payment required, the amount of any payment, the amount any finance charge, the terms of loan repayment and the annual percentage rate (APR) associated with a loan.

Finally, the order instructs Cowboy Toyota to comply with the CLA and its implementing Regulation M by prohibiting deceptive lease advertisements and requiring that all ads clearly and conspicuously disclose a range of facts, including that the advertised deal is a lease, the total amount due on delivery, the number and timing of scheduled payments, and whether or not a security deposit is required.

The commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement was 2-0.

The FTC reiterated that the regulator issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions.

Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $40,654.


Southern California dealer group to pay FTC $1.4 million over advertising issues


The Federal Trade Commission flexed its regulatory muscle again this week.

Officials said a southern California-based dealership group will pay $1.4 million to settle FTC charges that it violated a 2014 administrative order prohibiting the company from misrepresenting how much consumers could pay to finance or lease a vehicle.

The proposed court order resolving the FTC’s complaint against the businesses operating as the Norm Reeves dealerships, bars similar advertising misrepresentations and imposes strict compliance and reporting terms to prevent future violations.

According to the FTC’s first complaint, the defendants made a variety of misrepresentations in advertisements to consumers that violated the FTC Act, falsely leading consumers to believe they could buy vehicles for specific low prices, finance vehicles for specific low monthly payments and/or make no upfront payment when leasing.

Specifically, the FTC charged Norm Reeves with deceptively advertising that consumers could pay $0 up-front to lease a vehicle when, in fact, the advertised price excluded substantial fees and other costs. The ads also allegedly violated the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) by failing to disclose certain lease related terms. One of the dealerships’ ads also allegedly violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, by failing to disclose certain credit-related terms.

The orders settling the previous complaint, which the commission approved as final in May 2014, prohibited the dealerships from misrepresenting the cost of purchasing a vehicle with financing, or any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of a vehicle in its ads.

The orders also addressed the defendants’ alleged TILA and CLA violations by requiring the dealerships to clearly and conspicuously disclose terms required by these credit and lease laws.

Officials explained the proposed court order announced this week settles the FTC’s civil penalty complaint that the defendants violated the 2014 order by misrepresenting the total cost of vehicle financing or leases to prospective buyers, or misrepresenting the offer’s availability to all consumers.

They added the order also settles commission charges that the defendants failed to disclose, or did not clearly and conspicuously disclose, credit and lease information required by TILA and the CLA, and failed to maintain proper records, in violation of the order.

In addition to prohibiting future misrepresentations about the material costs and terms of vehicle financings or leases, the order requires the defendants to comply with TILA, Regulation Z, and the CLA. It also provides for a $1.4 million civil penalty and contains strong compliance and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with its terms.

The commission vote authorizing the staff to file a complaint for civil penalties and to approve a proposed consent in settlement of the court action was 2-0. The complaint and proposed order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, having been referred back to the FTC by the Department of Justice.

The proposed order settles the FTC complaint against:

—Norm Reeves Honda Superstore Cerritos
—Norm Reeves Ford Superstore Cerritos
—Norm Reeves Lincoln
—Norm Reeves Hyundai Superstore
—Cerritos Infiniti
—Norm Reeves Honda Superstore Huntington Beach
—Conant Auto Retail Group and the Car Group
—Toyota San Diego and Scion San Diego
—Norm Reeves Honda Irvine
—Norm Reeves Volkswagen
—Norm Reeves Buick GMC
—Norm Reeves Acura of Mission Viejo
—Port Charlotte Honda and Port Charlotte Volkswagen
—Norm Reeves Honda Superstore West Covina

FTC reinforces auto industry enforcement priorities


Coinciding with the regulator offering a deeper explanation of its revamped Used Car Rule, Tom Pahl of the Federal Trade Commission made the opening presentation during the National Policy Conference, hosted this week by the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association.

Pahl covered a variety of topics during his 45-minute opportunity behind the lectern at the Dupont Circle Hotel, located less than a test drive distance away from the White House and Capitol Hill. Pahl told nearly 200 dealers, service providers and other industry representatives that working with organizations such as NIADA is beneficial to helping consumers understand the intricacies of acquiring and financing a vehicle.

Pahl also recapped some of the most recent FTC actions. What might be a thorn for dealers and finance companies, Pahl noted that the regulator is trying to make civil investigative demands “more streamlined” and “more transparent of what info we’re seeking.”

Reinforcing the assessment of compliance expert Randy Henrick, , Pahl also mentioned how the FTC is continuing to watch dealer advertising closely when it comes to stores promoting financing options. Many FTC investigations are connected to “truthful statements in advertising to consumers,” according to Pahl, who back in February was appointed as acting director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

While certainly busy, Pahl went on to point out that the FTC likely won’t be highly active in rule making, rather focusing on regulations already in place.

Pahl urged dealers and finance companies to leverage the guidance available on the FTC’s website as a path to making business decisions that are compliance with the regulator’s mandates. Another example is what the FTC just delivered in response to a request from the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The legal team at Hudson Cook highlighted that the FTC issued a guidance document answering certain frequently asked questions about the revised Used Car Rule and the revised Buyers Guide.

The material explained that the 2016 amendments don’t change the essential requirements of the Used Car Rule. The regulator insisted the changes include certain revisions to the Buyers Guide to give consumers more information and to make it easier for dealers to disclose manufacturer and third-party warranties. Here is a summary of what’s new:

—The revised Buyers Guide recommends that consumers get a vehicle history report before buying a used car and sends them to ftc.gov/usedcars for more information on how to get one.

—The revised Buyers Guide directs consumers that before buying a vehicle, they should visit to check for safety recalls.

—There’s a new description in the revised Buyers Guide of an “As Is” sale to clarify that “As Is” refers only to whether the vehicle is offered with a warranty from the dealer.

—The revised Buyers Guide adds boxes dealers can check to indicate whether a vehicle is covered by a third-party warranty and whether a service contract may be available.

—The revised Buyers Guide adds a box dealers can check to indicate that an unexpired manufacturer’s warranty applies.

—The new English-language version of the Buyers Guide adds a statement in Spanish advising Spanish-speaking consumers to ask for the Buyers Guide in Spanish if the dealer is conducting the sale in Spanish.

—On the back of the revised Buyers Guide, air bags and catalytic converters have been added to the list of major defects that may occur in used vehicles.