On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable (“FAIR”) Business Practices Act. The FAIR Business Practices Act adds prohibitions against “unfair” and “abusive” acts or practices to the state attorney general’s arsenal, which otherwise expressly addressed only such acts or practices that are “deceptive.”
The state Attorney…
The new California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act, which Governor Newsom signed on October 7, 2025, mirrors the thwarted efforts of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to address concerns about unfair or deceptive acts or practices among motor vehicle dealers. The California CARS Act will become effective on October 1, 2026, and will prohibit dealers from making misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, or about any costs, limitation, benefit, or other aspect of any add-on product or service.
Applicability
The California CARS Act will constitute a new title within the state’s Civil Code[1] and will apply generally to motor vehicle dealers in the state. However, the new protections will not apply to “commercial purchasers” of vehicles, meaning those that purchase five or more vehicles from the dealer per year for use primarily for business or commercial purposes. They also will not apply to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.
Total Price
One of the key aspects of the California CARS Act (as with the FTC’s fallen CARS Rule) is the requirement to disclose the “total price.” Specifically, the Act will require dealers to disclose, clearly and conspicuously in connection with the sale or financing of a vehicle, the vehicle’s total price. That total price includes the total sales price of the vehicle, excluding taxes, fees, and charges; any dealer price adjustment; and the cost of any item installed on the vehicle at the time of the advertisement or communication. It does not include any deduction for a rebate. The total price must be included in any advertisement of a specific vehicle for sale, or that represents any monetary amount or financing term for a specific vehicle. In addition, the total price must be included in the first written communication with a consumer about a specific vehicle, such as the dealer’s first response to a consumer regarding the vehicle. The total price disclosure requirement does not, however, apply to used vehicles sold at auctions.
Other Disclosures
In addition to the disclosure of the total price of specific vehicles in advertisements and communications, dealers must disclose in any written representation during a negotiation to purchase or lease a specific vehicle that any add-on products or services the dealer mentions are not required. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous and in writing. If the negotiation is taking place primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, the disclosure that the consumer may purchase or lease the vehicle without the add-on product or service must also be provided in that language.
When making any written representation about the amount of monthly payments to purchase or lease a specific vehicle, the dealer must disclose in writing the amount the consumer will pay after making all those monthly payments. If the dealer makes written comparisons between payment options that include lower monthly payments, the dealer must explain that those lower payments often increase the total amount the consumer will pay.Continue Reading New California CARS Act
Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (“CARS Rule”) on January 27, 2025, the FTC and state attorneys general continue to target the auto sales and lending industries through enforcement actions and legislation. Among those efforts, the California legislature is considering its…
For the most recent edition of Supervisory Highlights, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau focused on examiners’ findings in the auto finance sector. Several of these practices were identified by the CFPB in prior Supervisory Highlights. Many of the CFPB’s concerns relate to trends in the marketing, sales, financing, and refunds related to add-on products like optional vehicle- or payment-protection, and to consumers’ difficulty in cancelling those products or receiving refunds. The Federal Trade Commission and state regulators also have prioritized these areas, and several states have recently passed legislation addressing add-on products (including refunds, cancellation and notification). In several of the findings, the CFPB noted that the failures related to inadequate oversight of service providers, reflecting another recurring theme in CFPB’s compliance management expectations.
The CFPB has framed many of these targeted practices as unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”), which is consistent with certain of the agency’s recent consent orders or suits related to auto servicing practices.
In response to the findings, the CFPB generally demanded ceasing the allegedly noncompliant practices, developing policies and procedures to ensure compliance going forward, and in some cases refunding amounts to consumers.
Motor vehicle dealers, auto finance companies, servicers and secondary market purchasers of auto loans should take note of these highlighted practices when evaluating their policies and procedures.Continue Reading CFPB Supervisory Highlights Target Certain Auto Lending and Servicing Practices
Mayer Brown is pleased to provide the latest edition of its UDAAP Round-Up. This newsletter is designed to provide readers with a periodic resource to stay abreast of federal activities regarding the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the consumer financial services space. In this edition, we cover notable policy…
Mere days before Halloween, California enacted California Senate Bill 666, imposing a set of restrictions on the fees that commercial financers may charge their small business customers. Signed by the governor on October 13, the legislation marks an escalation of the state’s regulation of commercial financing. What began as a disclosure-based regime with California’s…
Please check out the latest edition of our UDAAP Round-Up — a periodic review of federal activities regarding the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAPs”) in the consumer financial services space. In this edition, we cover notable policy, enforcement, and supervisory developments from October 2022 through March 2023
Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry just announced an $11 million settlement with a rent-to-own provider resolving allegations of deceptive and predatory financing practices. The May 15, 2023, settlement, which is awaiting court approval, resolves allegations that Snap Finance LLC and its affiliates (“Snap”) disguised the nature of financing products it offered, concealed outstanding balances, engaged in deceptive collection practices, and used a web portal that allowed retailers to sign consumers up for financing without their knowledge, among other claims.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Targets Rent-to-Own Company Over Practices
The CFPB marketed its latest set of supervisory highlights as the “Junk Fees Special Edition.” The splashy headline is consistent with the agency’s recent focus on fees that it asserts are hidden from the competitive process. In speeches, press releases, and blog posts (and now a single proposed rule), the CFPB has stressed its growing concern with “junk” fees. The CFPB even created a section of its web site solely devoted to press releases on “junk” fees.
Gleaning compliance guidance from Supervisory Highlights is not always straightforward, as they do not provide full details. However, in this Special Edition, the CFPB notes that it has characterized the following types of fees and practices as junk:
Deposit Accounts
Auto/Title Financing
Mortgage Loan ServicingContinue Reading CFPB Junk Fees Special Edition
Just into the new year, the FTC notched its first success in a creative theory to extend its monetary penalty authorities, which the Supreme Court trimmed back last year. In FTC v. RCG Advances, the FTC settled allegations that a small-business financing firm and its principals violated Section 521(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Originally…
