Patrick O'Brien of NIADA joins the hosts to unpack the FTC’s recent warning letters to dealers and what they could mean next. The conversation moves from federal enforcement and complaint data to the finer points of pricing transparency, dock fees, add-ons, and out-the-door advertising. It also touches on the Repair Act, dealer association advocacy in Washington, and how independent dealers are trying to stay competitive while navigating a fast-changing compliance landscape.
In this episode of the Independent Dealer Podcast, Jeff Watson and Luke Godwin sit down with Patrick O'Brien, Director of Government Relations and Compliance at NIADA, for a straight-shooting breakdown of the FTC's 97 warning letters to dealerships — what they mean, why they were sent, and what every dealer needs to do right now. From the vacated CARS rule to out-the-door pricing, Patrick pulls back the curtain on what Washington is actually doing to police market conduct in 2026.
What You'll Learn:
Why the FTC issued 97 warning letters to dealerships — and what happens next if they don't clean up their act
How the Lindsay Auto Group consent agreement is a preview of what enforcement actually looks like
What "out-the-door price" really means under Section 5 of the FTC Act — and why doc fees can no longer be hidden
Whether independent dealers can (or should) report franchise stores that are still doing it wrongHow NIADA and NADA are working together — and where they disagree — on right to repair and safety recall legislation
Why the NIADA Convention in Denver (June 21–24) is the place to get compliant and get ahead
If you're an independent or BHPH dealer trying to navigate the FTC's crackdown on deceptive pricing, this episode is required listening.
Support the businesses that support the podcast:
Buckeye Risk Services - Reinsurance and wealth strategies for independent dealers.
"So this is a bill. [277.6s] The acronym is the Repair Act. [279.4s] And essentially what this would do is it would compel the OEMs..."
The Repair Act is a proposed law discussed in the episode. The goal is to make it easier for independent repair shops to get the information and tools they need to diagnose and fix cars.
The Repair Act (as referenced in the segment) is a proposed piece of legislation aimed at improving access to vehicle diagnostic information. The speaker says it would compel OEMs to share diagnostic data and tools with the aftermarket so independent repair and reconditioning can be done more efficiently.
" ...it would compel the OEMs [282.5s] to share the diagnostic data and the tools and make all that available to the aftermarket part industry..."
OEMs are the original car makers—the companies that build the vehicles in the first place. The bill being discussed would require them to share certain repair information and tools.
OEMs means “original equipment manufacturers,” the companies that build the vehicles and their factory systems. In this episode, the Repair Act would require OEMs to share diagnostic data and tools with the aftermarket and independent repair ecosystem.
"So this is a bill. [277.6s] The acronym is the Repair Act. [279.4s] And essentially what this would do is it would compel the OEMs [282.5s] to share the diagnostic data and the tools and make all that available to the aftermarket part industry..."
Diagnostic data is the car’s “troubleshooting information,” like what system is failing and what the sensors are seeing. The point here is that independent repair shops should be able to access it too, not just dealership technicians.
Diagnostic data is the information a vehicle generates for troubleshooting—things like fault codes, sensor readings, and system status. In the context of the Repair Act, the idea is that OEMs would have to share this data so independent shops and the aftermarket can diagnose and repair cars without relying solely on franchise dealer tools.
" ...available to the aftermarket part industry just to make [290.5s] reconditioning efforts and repair efforts that much more seamless rather than having to rely on the franchise dealers."
The aftermarket part industry makes replacement parts and related tools that are not produced by the original vehicle manufacturer (OEM). The segment frames the Repair Act as enabling this industry to perform repairs and reconditioning more effectively by getting access to OEM diagnostic information and tools.
" ...reconditioning efforts and repair efforts that much more seamless rather than having to rely on the franchise dealers."
Franchise dealers are the official, authorized dealerships tied to a specific car brand. The concern is that without access to the right repair information, independent shops may have to send work to those dealerships.
Franchise dealers are authorized dealerships that sell and service vehicles under the manufacturer’s brand and agreements. The speaker’s point is that if OEMs don’t share diagnostic data and tools, independent shops may be forced to rely on these dealer networks to complete repairs.
" ...I give NADA credit for getting out ahead of this the same [321.8s] way NIADA got out ahead of this to do everything that we could [325.5s] to educate our members about their compliance obligations..."
NADA is an organization that represents car dealerships. In this segment, the host says NADA helped dealers prepare by explaining what the FTC actions and warning letters mean.
NADA is the National Automobile Dealers Association, which represents franchised car dealers. The speaker credits NADA with getting out ahead of the FTC issue by educating members about compliance obligations and what the warning letters mean.
" ...the same [321.8s] way NIADA got out ahead of this to do everything that we could [325.5s] to educate our members about their compliance obligations..."
NIADA is an organization for independent car dealers. The speaker says NIADA also helped dealers prepare by explaining compliance expectations tied to the FTC warnings.
NIADA is the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, representing independent dealers. The speaker compares NIADA’s actions to NADA’s, saying both groups worked to educate members about compliance obligations related to the FTC warning letters.
" ...to educate our members about their compliance obligations [328.5s] under law, what these letters mean, the strong likelihood that..."
Compliance obligations are the rules a business has to follow to stay on the right side of the law. The point being made is that dealers should take FTC warning letters seriously because enforcement can follow quickly.
Compliance obligations are the legal and regulatory requirements a business must follow to avoid enforcement actions. Here, the speaker is connecting FTC warning letters to dealers’ duties under the law, emphasizing that the first warning may be the last before enforcement begins.
Concept
enforcement hammer
" ...what these letters mean, the strong likelihood that [332.7s] this is your first, last and only warning before the enforcement [336.1s] hammer was to fall."
“Enforcement hammer” is a way of saying regulators will start taking real action. The speaker’s message is that a warning letter could be the last step before penalties or other enforcement.
“Enforcement hammer” is a metaphor for the start of formal government action after warnings. The speaker suggests these FTC letters may be the first and only warning before regulators begin taking stronger measures against dealers.
"This is swaths of complaints that rose to the level of the FTC saying, okay, there's tens of thousands of car dealers, but these 97 dealerships have so many complaints..."
The FTC is a U.S. government agency that watches over advertising and consumer rules. Here, it’s warning car dealers that their ads may not be clear enough under the law.
FTC stands for the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. government agency that enforces consumer-protection and advertising rules. In this episode, the FTC is described as sending warning letters to car dealers for advertising practices that may not meet legal transparency requirements.
"They're essentially a prelude to an offense to a potential enforcement action or a lawsuit. It's your one and only opportunity to get your house in order,"
An enforcement action is when a regulator takes formal steps to compel compliance or penalize violations. Here, the host frames the FTC warning letters as a precursor to enforcement action or a lawsuit if the dealer’s advertising issues continue.
"It's your one and only opportunity to get your house in order, because I'm sure that they will do a look back and make sure that there's no subsequent complaints"
A “look back” refers to regulators reviewing prior conduct—such as earlier ads, complaint history, or past compliance behavior. The host uses it to explain how warning letters can be followed by scrutiny of what the dealer did before the warning.
"because I'm sure that they will do a look back and make sure that there's no subsequent complaints or they may do some audits."
In this context, audits are formal reviews of a dealership’s practices—likely including how it advertises and whether it follows consumer-protection laws. The host suggests the FTC may audit dealers after sending warning letters to check for ongoing or new complaints.
"They may do some investigations depending on just how bad those complaints were. And if they do do that, that's when the fines become significant."
The host emphasizes that penalties can escalate if regulators move from warnings into investigations or enforcement. For dealers, this is a practical reminder that compliance efforts after a warning letter matter because the financial consequences may increase.
"The Lindsay Auto Group, which is a pretty large auto group here in the DC area where I reside, just agreed to a consent agreement with the NPC for essentially the exact same thing,"
Lindsay Auto Group is described as a large auto group in the DC area that agreed to a consent agreement related to dealer advertising transparency. The mention is used as an example of how similar issues can lead to regulatory settlements.
"The Lindsay Auto Group, which is a pretty large auto group here in the DC area where I reside, just agreed to a consent agreement with the NPC for essentially the exact same thing,"
A consent agreement is a legal settlement where a party agrees to certain terms without necessarily admitting wrongdoing. In dealer enforcement contexts, it often resolves allegations about advertising or consumer-protection violations and can include compliance requirements.
Company
NPC
"just agreed to a consent agreement with the NPC for essentially the exact same thing,"
NPC is referenced as the agency involved in a consent agreement with the Lindsay Auto Group. The context suggests it’s a regulatory/enforcement body tied to dealer advertising or consumer-protection compliance, but the transcript doesn’t spell out what NPC stands for.
Term
franchise guys
"And so, I know, Patrick, you can't say that, [978.7s] but the other issue we've had in Utah [981.1s] is the new car, the franchise guys, [985.7s] the managers, the FNI guys are so incentivized by money"
This is talking about dealerships that sell a specific car brand under that brand’s franchise agreement. The people running those stores can be pushed by incentives to sell extra stuff.
“Franchise guys” refers to dealership operators who run a brand’s franchised dealership under the automaker’s rules. In practice, they’re often tied to brand-specific sales processes and incentives that can influence how they present add-ons to customers.
"And so, I know, Patrick, you can't say that, [978.7s] but the other issue we've had in Utah [981.1s] is the new car, the franchise guys, [985.7s] the managers, the FNI guys are so incentivized by money"
At many dealerships, there’s a finance-and-insurance desk. Those staff members often try to sell extra coverage and add-ons after you pick the car.
“FNI guys” is shorthand for the Finance and Insurance (F&I) department at a dealership. This team typically sells dealership add-ons like vehicle service contracts and other finance products, and they’re often paid with commissions that can create pressure to upsell.
Concept
sell back-end product
"the new car, the franchise guys, [985.7s] the managers, the FNI guys are so incentivized by money [989.7s] to sell back-end product that they don't care."
“Sell back-end product” means focusing on profit from finance-and-insurance add-ons after the vehicle sale, rather than on the car’s base price. In dealership practice, this often includes warranties/service contracts and other upsells tied to commissions.
"They will say and do anything in the office [996.7s] to get that customer to buy a warranty [999.0s] or think that an optional piece is not optional. [1002.0s] It's already on the car, you have to take it."
They’re talking about extra coverage sold by the dealership. The issue is that some salespeople may pressure you to buy it or act like you must take it, even if you don’t.
In this context, “warranty” is being used as a dealership add-on—often a vehicle service contract—sold after the sale. The concern raised is that some dealers may pressure customers to buy it or present it as required even when it’s optional.
"They will say and do anything in the office [996.7s] to get that customer to buy a warranty [999.0s] or think that an optional piece is not optional. [1002.0s] It's already on the car, you have to take it."
They mean add-ons that you can usually choose to decline. The concern is that some dealers may make it sound like you have no choice.
“Optional piece” refers to dealership add-ons that are not required to purchase the vehicle. The episode’s point is that some F&I processes can blur the line by implying the add-on is mandatory or already included.
Term
full-sum disclosure
"What you just described to me doesn't sound like a full-sum disclosure of everything that needs to be included in the file price."
It means the price you see in the ad should be the real total you’ll pay, not a smaller number that later turns into a bigger bill. If important charges are left out, it can get the dealer in trouble.
In dealer advertising and pricing, a “full-sum disclosure” means the ad price should include all required fees and charges so shoppers aren’t misled. If the dealer omits items that will later be added, regulators may view it as deceptive pricing.
Term
file price
"What you just described to me doesn't sound like a full-sum disclosure of everything that needs to be included in the file price."
“File price” is the price the dealer has on record for the vehicle. The discussion is about making sure the ad price and the recorded disclosed price line up.
“File price” refers to the dealer’s submitted or recorded vehicle price used for compliance and advertising disclosures. The key point is that the dealer must ensure the advertised price matches what’s properly disclosed in the pricing paperwork.
"the prices advertised, excluded options added by the dealer and displayed on the vehicle's window sticker addendum."
Sometimes the car’s window sticker has extra pages or notes that list dealer-added items. The issue here is that ads may show a lower price while the addendum shows extra charges.
A “window sticker addendum” is extra documentation attached to the vehicle’s window sticker to show additional dealer-installed items or adjustments. In this context, the concern is that advertised prices may exclude dealer-added options shown on that addendum.
Term
P.
"So probably when I get there, I'm going to get hit with another $3,000 in P."
“P.” sounds like a shorthand for an extra charge the dealer will add later. The point is that the advertised number may not be the final total you end up paying.
“P.” appears to be shorthand for a dealer-added price component (likely a fee or add-on amount) that the speaker expects to be added on top of the advertised figure. The important takeaway is that the final out-the-door total can be higher once dealer options/charges are applied.
"But you're all over the place.
So if I just decide tomorrow, Luke, to go to a no dock fee situation,
I'm giving up $15,000 a month in revenue that I'm making right now"
A “no dock fee” means the dealer isn’t adding a separate charge for getting the car delivered to them. Sometimes the dealer just builds that cost into the car’s price instead.
A “no dock fee” deal means the dealer does not charge a separate dock fee to cover costs tied to getting the vehicle from the manufacturer/port to the dealer. In practice, the dealer may still recover those costs elsewhere, such as through the vehicle’s listed price.
"I'm giving up $15,000 a month in revenue that I'm making right now
after my unnegotiated price or a list price, right?
Say I have a $20,000 car."
An “unnegotiated price” is the sticker price the dealer starts from before you try to bargain. The point here is that extra fees can change what you actually end up paying.
An “unnegotiated price” is the amount a dealer lists as the starting price before bargaining. In this segment, the speaker contrasts that baseline with how added fees (like dock fees) affect the total out-the-door cost and the dealer’s ability to stay compliant.
"after my unnegotiated price or a list price, right?
Say I have a $20,000 car.
Sure, I'll pay you 20 grand for it."
A “list price” is the number the dealer puts out as the starting price. If rules require fees to be included in that number, it can affect how the dealer sets pricing.
A “list price” is the published selling price the dealer uses as the reference point for the deal. The segment argues that if certain fees must be included in the listed price for compliance, the dealer’s math changes—especially when customers expect a “no dock fee” structure.
"My car still listed at 20 grand instead of $20,300, which is what I need to list it at
today to make sure I'm compliant, right?
So, where does that work out?"
“Compliant” here refers to meeting regulatory requirements for how dealers must disclose pricing and fees. The speaker suggests the dealer must list the car at a specific price (including required fee treatment) to avoid violating those rules.
"because my dock fees advertised, right? ... all my descriptions say, hey, at $20,000, this includes my $300 dock fee. ... just my advertised price."
The advertised price is what the dealer says the car costs in ads or online listings. They’re discussing whether the dock fee is considered part of that advertised price—because that affects whether the dealer can add it later during negotiation.
The advertised price is the price the dealer publicly lists for the vehicle, including any required fees that are represented as part of the offer. In this segment, the hosts argue that if the dock fee is included in the advertised/list price and described in the listing, the dealer can charge it even when the buyer negotiates the base price downward.
Concept
Section 5
"The NAFTC was clear that Section 5 sets the ceiling not to include it. You can negotiate the price downward."
“Section 5” is a reference to a specific legal rule the hosts are using to decide what dealers can do with pricing. They’re saying the advertised price sets the limit, and the dealer can negotiate the base price down as long as they’re not misleading customers.
“Section 5” here refers to a specific legal rule the hosts are using to reason about pricing disclosures and what dealers are allowed to charge relative to what they advertise. The key point in the segment is that the “ceiling” is tied to the advertised amount, and negotiation can move the price downward while still charging certain disclosed components.
Select text to request an explanation
They're a warning shot.
They're essentially a prelude to a potential enforcement
action or a lawsuit.
One, an only opportunity to crowd support them,
because I'm sure that they will do a look back,
make sure that there are no subsequent complaints,
or they may do some audits, they may do some investigations
to pick up on how bad those complaints were.
And if they do do that, that's when the clients
become significant.
Let's get up again.
Hello and welcome to the independent dealer podcast.
Luke, we have got some stuff going on, on a scary,
like, I'm going to find you into the Stone Age type
situation here with the federal government, yeah?
Yeah.
And I'm okay with it if somebody's doing what some
of these franchise dealers have been doing, so.
And I'll set it up, is that, Joe?
Ah, I see, I see, okay, so we're going to find out.
Luke's okay.
We've got Patrick O'Brien here with us.
He is with NIADA, our National Association.
Patrick, introduce yourself to the podcast community.
Thanks.
Well, first and foremost, it's a real pleasure to be
on this show.
This is a hallmark of my career.
I was waiting for an occasion and it finally landed.
Thank goodness for that.
But I'm Patrick O'Brien.
I'm the director of government relations and compliance at NIADA.
So I am your man in Washington.
Well, we appreciate you being there because I don't want to
step foot in Washington.
I'm good.
I mean, you know, card dealers are labeled as liars and cheaters,
but what the people you have to deal with every day are the
liars and the cheaters.
And you don't have to answer that.
I'm just saying they are.
Sounds personal.
I'll take a declarative statement on a topic like that.
Seven days a week.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You're in it.
And what we appreciate is you're in it for dealers, right?
We need to have a voice in Washington, the used car
association.
We are, I mean, how would you compare us on scale to the
new car association?
Well, from a membership perspective, it's just a
difference of a few thousand.
We note that we have 13,000 members.
NADA notes that they have about 16,000 members.
So on balance, there isn't much of a difference, but they are
much, much better resource because a lot of their members
are multi-store.
So it starts to add up on your back.
When they make an altar call, it fills up quite fast.
True.
But I work with them regularly.
The best, you know, it's their source of numbers in
Washington.
So I meet with them regularly.
We find areas of commonality.
And when we're aligned on a policy level, we move out in
force.
We're doing that with respect to some pretty draconian
safety recall legislation working collectively to keep
that from finding its way into a must pass piece of
legislation.
We're working with them on Caled and Converter legislation
to areas where there's zero daylight between the two of
us.
So I want to be clear that, you know, we do work well
together, but when we disagree, we just agree to
disagree in a professional way.
Sure.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's definitely one of those situations where you can
be allies 99% of the time and every so often you'll have
a disagreement or you'll see things differently.
Unfortunately, the used car association, we just kind of
say, okay, well, I guess you guys are going to have it your
way.
Yeah.
We have to ride their coaxial, I think, on most things.
Not on everything.
I certainly do not sit idly by when we have significant
material differences on policy matters.
It was at a conference two weeks ago in Los Angeles and it
was a room full of compliance attorneys and professionals.
The franchise dealer association, their head of public
policy was up there giving a public policy update and made
it a point to raise when it came to write your repair
legislation that this is an area where NADA and NIADA do not
agree.
And I thought that that was very dignified of him to say that
as it happens to be true and you don't want to leave these
compliance books with all suppression that there's
alignment on a topic when there is.
What legislation was that, Patrick?
So this is a bill.
The acronym is the Repair Act.
And essentially what this would do is it would compel the OEMs
to share the diagnostic data and the tools and make all that
available to the aftermarket part industry just to make
reconditioning efforts and repair efforts that much more
seamless rather than having to rely on the franchise dealers.
Yeah, I understand.
I understand their position.
I understand our position there.
Yes, I see how we could.
On the FTC thing though, I would assume we align pretty well
there, right?
I have certainly talked to them about this.
I don't think anybody is going to advocate for an unfair playing
field.
And I give NADA credit for getting out ahead of this the same
way NIADA got out ahead of this to do everything that we could
to educate our members about their compliance obligations
under law, what these letters mean, the strong likelihood that
this is your first, last and only warning before the enforcement
hammer was to fall.
And that's exactly what we should be doing is trade
associations.
And if you look at what NADA has done and what NIADA has done,
it's essentially the same thing, which is ask thoughtful
questions, offer to be a resource to the FTC as they determine
what the next steps will be in terms of clarifying guidance
and FAQs and offering to provide granular practitioner
perspectives that will feed in an important process.
They're doing it, we're doing it, an effort to get to a place
where dealers will look at those FAQs and there should be,
at least in the perfect world, no questions, no confusion,
just clarity about what those expectations are.
Yeah, Patrick, we would just rewind for a second.
For dealers that don't know that might be living under a rock
or whatever it might be, give us the plain English situation
we're dealing with here, the fines that have come out for
certain dealers, the warning letters that went out.
What is the issue?
Sure, well, let's kind of start from the one yard line,
if you will, and that would be the cars rule that was
promulgated on the previous administration and due to a
procedural misstep on the part of the FTC, and I could get
pedantic with you and explain what that was,
but I'll give you the layman's answer.
Due to that procedural misstep, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the rule, and therefore it's invalid,
and the likelihood of the FTC promulgating a new cars rule
is quite unlikely, particularly in this administration
where they have issued an executive order that says,
for every rule you draft, you need to rescind five,
and that's a real tough choice for any agency to make.
So that brings us to where we are today.
What is the difference between what was contemplated
in the cars rule versus what has existed for 114 years
through Section 5 of the FTC Act?
There is very few differences between the provisions
in the cars act and what's already law under Section 5.
So what the FTC did on March 13th was issue 97 letters
to dealerships that have not been disclosed.
I think in due course we're likely to see the names
of those dealerships.
I have it under the authority that a number of entities
have submitted freedom of information requests to the FTC.
I asked the FTC if these were protected under an exemption,
and they said no, and that the FOIA request were to be submitted,
it would be appropriately managed.
So I do think those names will come out.
But the letters are grounded in what can only be described
as significant back patterns of complaints
that have been submitted to the FTC's sensible database.
I'm not talking about one person who had a bad experience
in submitting it.
This is swaths of complaints that rose to the level of the FTC
saying, okay, there's tens of thousands of car dealers,
but these 97 dealerships have so many complaints
that have been filed on them that we need to warn them
that it's clear that they're advertising not as transparent
as it should be under the law.
So those letters were issued on the 13th,
and they're a warning shot.
They're essentially a prelude to an offense
to a potential enforcement action or a lawsuit.
It's your one and only opportunity to get your house in order,
because I'm sure that they will do a look back
and make sure that there's no subsequent complaints
or they may do some audits.
They may do some investigations depending on just how bad
those complaints were.
And if they do do that, that's when the fines become significant.
Now, you asked about previous fines.
I think the timing here is pretty interesting.
The Lindsay Auto Group, which is a pretty large auto group here
in the DC area where I reside,
just agreed to a consent agreement with the NPC
for essentially the exact same thing,
misleading their customers,
not being transparent with their pricing,
putting add-ons without disclosing that add-ons are optional.
And this was something that originally goes back to 2024.
And if you look at what Lindsay said in 2024
versus what they said in 2026,
it's the difference between night and day,
which would suggest to me that that conduct continued
with the hopes that nobody would catch them.
And I think what the FTC is doing,
absent the car's rule,
is saying car's rule would have been nice.
It was an additive measure.
It wasn't a must-have measure for us to properly police market conduct
to make sure that dealers are following what's required on them.
That's...
Have we seen one of these letters?
Yes, so there's a template that's on the FTC's website.
It enumerates the various examples of potential violations of Section 5.
It's the typical things.
You're not disclosing that add-ons are optional.
The true price does not include optional fees.
It should be clear that that fee is all-inclusive
with the exception of mandatory fees.
I like to make sure that required in mandatory
that people understand the difference.
And maybe require dealership,
but it's not mandatory.
If a dealer out there that's listening,
do we know if we have been reported to the FTC?
Is there any way for us as dealers to know if that's ever happened or not?
That's a good question.
I think the answer is no.
I don't believe that the general public has plenary access to the database.
You can certainly submit a complaint.
And on that point, if I may just feed it for a moment,
one question that we asked the FTC last week during our webinar
was if our members see this type of violations of law happening in their community,
may they report that?
And they said, absolutely.
We are all four tips.
If you are identifying this type of bad acting,
we want to know about it so we can follow up on it appropriately.
But back to your original question.
I don't believe so.
Certainly if you see a poor review on Yelp or Google,
chances are that person may have filed a complaint on you as well.
Yeah, Luke, are you worried you got turned in?
No.
I try to do it right.
But I feel like that would be a good thing to know.
If I was a dealer that I thought I did things right,
and all of a sudden, I get a letter from the FTC,
and I never got one before.
I'd like to know if I was ever on their radar for doing something.
You know what I mean?
But going back to what I said earlier,
the people who receive these letters,
it's because there is a ponderance of evidence through the complaint data
and not one-off, serial examples of lack of transparency in the pricing space.
So, unless you are going out of your way to mislead your consumers,
I think that you would know if you were in that data.
Hey, sorry to break in real quick,
but make sure you guys know about Buckeye.
Long time, awesome sponsor of the podcast,
and who I use for all my reinsurance products.
I can't thank them enough for teaching me so much about reinsurance over the years
and coming up with new products and new ways to get my portfolio secured.
My customers have options of warranties and service contracts, gap.
I think it's just been great, Jeff.
It's absolutely been a great way for me to build wealth, put away some money.
So, if you are a buy here, pay here, lease
or a retail dealer, it works for all dealers.
You can set up a reinsurance company,
you can insure your own, stop giving money to those third-party providers
that aren't going to cover your stuff anyways,
keep it in-house, call the guys and girls over at Buckeye,
risk services and get set up ASAP.
And I figured as much.
You know, because...
Who knows?
Years ago, a friend of mine, the show,
got rated one afternoon by the FTC.
And he's not that large of a dealer,
but they walk in this probably 20 years ago, 15 years ago,
something to that effect.
And all of a sudden, FTC rolls into his office, right?
And it was because of an advertising situation
that every franchise dealer in the country was doing it in time
and it was, we'll pay off your trade no matter what you owe.
I think that was the phrasing that ended up becoming illegal at some point.
But, you know, if the FTC would have reached out to this dealer,
in my opinion, prior to that situation, he would have probably stopped.
So, I just hate to think that a dealer out there
thinks that they're doing something right and all of a sudden,
because he's doing what everybody else is doing,
then all of a sudden you get...
Well...
Okay, okay.
Let me just give you my two cents, Luke.
The phrase, I'm doing what everyone else is doing,
that's a big problem.
That's a big problem because how this all perpetrates throughout the system
is Mr. Used Car Manager works from...
He leaves one franchise group, comes to the next franchise group,
and says, guess what we were doing over there?
We were adding a $1,500 destination fee and a $500 detail fee
and a $1,000 friggin' whatever fee.
100% agree because these fees are outrageous.
I highly doubt this is going to come up and snag you in the butt.
A, B, it's not the guys listening to this podcast.
So, unfortunately, we can't provide you any value, Mr. Listener,
because you guys are not the ones that are egregiously being offensive
and manipulative with your pricing,
and then try to drop it down into the disclosure that says,
oh, price does not include destination shipping,
and you have to have a qualifying trade-in to get this price.
That was the big, big thing back in the EV tax credit era.
So, we would have these EV tax credits,
and everyone tried to get it to the $25,000,
so they would say, sure, I'll sell it to you for $25,000.
If you give me your trade-in, it's worth $10,000,
and I can give you $4,000 for it, right?
So, it was all this takeaway with the disclaimer
that said qualifying trade-in,
and there's two large groups here in Utah
that were just notorious for that.
And so, I know, Patrick, you can't say that,
but the other issue we've had in Utah
is the new car, the franchise guys,
the managers, the FNI guys are so incentivized by money
to sell back-end product that they don't care.
They will say and do anything in the office
to get that customer to buy a warranty
or think that an optional piece is not optional.
It's already on the car, you have to take it.
They will do anything to make money.
They don't care if in five years
the FTC comes down on their franchise group,
because they're just going to be gone and bounce somewhere else.
Yeah, you see that a lot in other industries as well.
Until recently, you saw a lot in the securities industry
where somebody could sell bad investment products,
and then they would just jump on the carousel
and go to the next broker dealer
and pick right up where they left off.
Thankfully, the FTC has gotten better about that,
but your point is valid.
There are still industries where that continues to happen.
It's not as though that's still a lingering problem
in the automotive space as well.
Do any of these fines name FNI guys?
Do any of the managers get named in these
or is it just the dealer group?
So with Lindsay, if I recall correctly,
it was the dealer principals.
They did name the executive officers,
because they had been sure opposed
and other investigative tools had been brought forth.
So they were included, their names were included
in the consent agreement.
The FNI manager could have been as well.
I just don't remember.
It's been a couple of weeks since I read it,
and a lot of development since then
that have overtaken my attention.
One last point I just want to make,
Luke, since you had asked,
maybe I'm in that database,
and it's possible because consumers are free
to submit whatever they want on FTC,
but one thing that we stress at NIEDA,
we do it with FTC,
and most recently with CFPB,
which is you really need to separate the week from the chat.
There's a material difference
between a bad customer experience
and a violation of the law.
And if somebody has a bad customer experience,
the free market prevails.
The free market is out there.
There's plenty of online reviews
that they can air their grievances,
but you should not put a bad customer experience
in the FTC's complaint database or CFPB's complaint database.
Why?
Because there are newer MOUs
that have been signed with state agencies,
whether it's attorney generals
or state regulators across the country
that have access to that information.
We don't need false positives,
and we want to make sure that whatever algorithm is looking at,
it's looking at real potential violations law
rather than somebody that just didn't like the way that they retreat.
See something that's not quite right? Our annotations are AI-generated and can sometimes miss the mark.
Click the flag icon on any annotation to suggest a correction.
