Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.
The Federal Trade Commission announced that it is exploring a rule to crack down on “junk fees,” which the FTC defines as “unnecessary, unavoidable, or surprise charges that inflate costs while adding little to no value.” In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FTC is seeking comment on the alleged harms caused by these junk fees, the tactics companies use to impose them, and whether there is a need for a rulemaking to prevent such practices.
According to the FTC, companies impose junk fees in a wide variety of contexts, including by cramming in hidden fees to which consumers did not consent, misrepresenting optional services or upgrades as mandatory, and by charging for products or services with little to no value. The FTC therefore seeks comment on harms stemming from the following:
While the FTC has historically taken action on junk fee practices-through, among other things, investigations, enforcement actions and consumer and business education-its authority to seek penalties and readily obtain consumer redress is limited without promulgation of a rule; this junk fee rule would change that.
In fact, just two days before announcing its junk fee ANPR, the FTC announced that it had taken action against auto dealer Passport Automotive Group for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds to thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices. The FTC's complaint alleges that Passport regularly advertised certified, reconditioned, or inspected cars at specific prices, but then added extra certification, reconditioning, or inspection fees that it falsely claimed consumers were required to pay. The FTC also alleges that Passport charged Black and Latino consumers hundreds of dollars more in financing costs and fees, on average, than white consumers.
Passport and its president and vice president will pay $3.38 million to settle the suit, which will be used to refund injured consumers. In addition, they have agreed to a court order that would (i) require Passport to establish a fair lending program to ensure it does not discriminate going forward, including by charging different groups different markup rates, and (ii) prohibit Passport from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. The order would also require Passport to only charge consumers fees with their express, informed consent.
With respect to the junk fee rule, the ANPR will soon be published in the Federal Register, upon which the public will have 60 days to submit comments electronically or by mail.
www.fkks.com
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
© Mondaq® Ltd 1994 – 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Forgot your password?
Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles (one-article limit removed) from the diverse perspectives of 5,000 leading law, accountancy and advisory firms
Articles tailored to your interests and optional alerts about important changes
Receive priority invitations to relevant webinars and events
You’ll only need to do it once, and readership information is just for authors and is never sold to third parties.
We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers (“Contributors”) who contribute Content for free for your use.