The National Automobile Dealers Association on Monday referred to as on the Federal Trade Commission to withdraw its proposed laws on auto dealerships, calling the company’s plan “severely flawed both as a matter of law and public policy.”
The commerce group’s 139-page response (and 225 pages of appendices) got here on the ultimate day for public touch upon the proposal to curtail bait-and-switch dealership worth promoting, deceptive finance and insurance coverage workplace practices, and F&I merchandise with no precise worth. NADA and different auto dealership commerce teams had unsuccessfully sought an extra 120 days to reply to the June draft of the foundations.
The company stated Tuesday it had acquired practically 26,400 feedback associated to the draft guidelines.
“The Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is ill-conceived, ill-supported, ill-coordinated, untested and unlawful. It also is unnecessary as each harm it seeks to address is already regulated under existing law,” Paul Metrey, NADA’s regulatory affairs vp, wrote to the FTC on Monday. “If finalized as proposed, the NPRM will inject massive costs into the auto retailing process, greatly extend transaction times, greatly confuse consumers, and impede efficiencies aided by technological innovations that have significantly improved — and continue to improve — the customer experience.”
He stated the plan “lacks any semblance of a responsible rulemaking that is the product of due diligence. It lacks critical stakeholder input, essential consumer testing and needed coordination with other federal agencies and state governments.”
The FTC’s 4-1 choice in favor of the proposal stated buyer confusion with “add-ons,” equivalent to aftermarket equipment or F&I protection, demonstrated the necessity for the rule. Chairwoman Lina Khan and Commissioners Noah Phillips, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya stated the company additionally wanted the rule to acquire penalties or shopper reimbursement, one thing made harder by the Supreme Court’s choice in AMG Capital Management v. FTC. The unanimous court docket held the fee could not request financial reduction alongside an injunction request; as an alternative, the FTC wanted to observe administrative procedures after which search the civil penalty.
“Although it has engaged in law enforcement, the Commission’s relatively small size and limited resources make it challenging to investigate and act upon the tens of thousands of complaints regarding dealerships,” the FTC wrote in its proposal. “Many of the problems observed in the motor vehicle marketplace persist in the face of repeated federal and state enforcement actions, suggesting the need for additional measures to deter deceptive and unfair practices. In addition, a rule prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the motor vehicle marketplace would allow the FTC to seek redress for harmed consumers and obtain other forms of monetary relief in cases involving FTC Act violations.”
Source: www.autonews.com