Ohio Dealers Settle FTC’s Deceptive Advertising Charges
The FTC announced this week that it has reached an agreement with two Ohio dealers to settle charges that their lease advertisements violated the FTC Act and the Consumer Leasing Act’s Regulation M.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two Ohio dealers have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that they deceived consumers with advertisements that touted low monthly car lease payments but failed to disclose key terms of the offers.
The FTC’s administrative complaint alleged that Progressive Chevrolet and Progressive Motors Inc. of Masillon, Ohio, failed to properly disclose terms such as the total amount due at signing, whether a security deposit was required, and credit score requirements. According to the regulator, “typical consumers could not qualify for the advertised terms.
The dealers were charged with violating the FTC Act and the Consumer Leasing Act’s Regulation M. Progressive Chevrolet Company also does business as Progressive Auto Group and Progressive Motors Inc.
The proposed settlement order, which will remain in effect for 20 years, prohibits the dealers from advertising misleading lease or finance terms. It also requires them to clearly and conspicuously disclose all qualifications or restrictions on a consumer’s ability to obtain the advertised terms.
“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 FTC stated in its release.
The 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 is based on the difference between the vehicle’s residual value and its value at the end of the lease.
The commission’s vote to issue an administrative complaint and accept the proposed consent agreement was 4-0. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. After that, the commission will decide whether to issue the order on a final basis.
Originally posted on F&I and Showroom
More Compliance

Dealer Ads and the FTC
The agency has made it clear in recent enforcement actions and warnings, in auto retail and other industries, that advertised prices must include all nonoptional costs to the consumer.
Read More →
AAMS Training and Mosaic Compliance Services Merge
The strategic combination is intended to expand technology-driven compliance solutions for the automotive industry.
Read More →
The Jurisprudence of Pricing
Legal concept helps makes sense of California’s recently passed version of the failed federal CARS legislation.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Enforcement Priorities
The upshot is don’t relax, because regulation indeed continues.
Read More →
June Is Automotive Service Professionals Month
Observance is opportunity to thank technicians for their crucial role in auto retail.
Read More →
Cox Automotive Releases Compliance Guide
New edition walks auto dealers through relevant regulations for 2025.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Retail Automotive
Administration’s plans should generally bode well for the industry.
Read More →
CARS Rule Update: 5th Circuit Oral Arguments Recap
In this video, Jim Ganther of Mosaic Compliance Services, recaps the key takeaways from the oral arguments in the critical CARS Rule case, including potential outcomes and what dealers should do to stay ahead of compliance changes.
Read More →
State of the CARS Rule, Part 3
The players in the automotive industry should coordinate their responses to this pending regulation.
Read More →
The Future of Car Dealer Documents
Where forms, documents, agreements and contracts could be in 50 years.
Read More →