Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—N.D. Cal.: Microsoft anti-solicitation conspiracy claims rejected as untimely
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: EC approves acquisition of Bayer’s diabetes care business by Panasonic Healthcare
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Planet Fitness agrees to cease ads encouraging indoor tanning
    • ADVERTISING—E.D. Wis.: Lanham Act allegations ruled insubstantial and frivolous
    • AGENCY NEWS: FTC names Bureau of Economics Director, Deputy Director for Antitrust
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: AAI supports reversal of dismissed Effexor XR pay-for-delay suit
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: CMA launches review of undertakings given by Performing Right Society
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Michigan county alleges water treatment chemicals price fixing conspiracy
    • BLOG TRACKER—Noteworthy blog posts and other commentary
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC to host data security conference in Seattle
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Ohio auto dealers settle FTC charges of deceptive lease ads
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—E.D. Va.: Transfer of franchisees’ leased property did not violate VPPFA right of first refusal amendment
    • PRIVACY—N.D. Ill.: $11M settlement of TCPA claims over Walgreens prescription refill calls gets final approval
    • RICO—S.D. Cal.: Union's efforts to organize hospital management company employees were not extortion under RICO
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Ohio auto dealers settle FTC charges of deceptive lease ads, (Nov 24, 2015)

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Two Ohio auto dealers have agreed to settle charges that they violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Leasing Act, and Regulation M by deceiving consumers with advertisements that touted low monthly car lease payments but failed to disclose key terms of t ...

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Two Ohio auto dealers have agreed to settle charges that they violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Leasing Act, and Regulation M by deceiving consumers with advertisements that touted low monthly car lease payments but failed to disclose key terms of the offers, the agency announced today.

    The FTC’s administrative complaint alleged that Progressive Chevrolet Company and Progressive Motors, Inc. of Masillon, Ohio, failed to properly disclose terms such as: (1) the total amount due at signing; (2) whether a security deposit was required; and (3) credit score requirements. According to the agency, typical consumers could not qualify for the advertised terms.

    The proposed settlement order provides that the auto dealers are prohibited from advertising misleading lease or financing terms; the auto dealers clearly and conspicuously disclose all qualifications or restrictions on a consumer’s ability to obtain the advertised terms; and if the ad states that consumers must meet a certain credit score in order to qualify for the offer and a majority of consumers are not likely to meet the stated credit score, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact.

    The auto dealers are also barred from advertising a payment amount, or that any or no initial payment is required, without clearly disclosing that the transaction is a lease; the total amount due at consummation or delivery; the number of payments and their amounts and timing; whether or not a security deposit is required; and that there may be an extra charge at the end of the lease where the consumer’s liability (if any) is based on the difference between the vehicle’s residual value and its value at the end of the lease.

    The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment through December 28, after which the Commission will decide whether to issue the order on a final basis. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically.

    News: Advertising ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use