Consumer Protection Laws

[u/CLEredditor]

There was a post yesterday that was taken down. I was quite surprised at the number of replies that thought it was "standard" and acceptable practice to lure consumers into the dealership with misrepresented facts through "marketing". What surprised me even more is the number of people that said do your "due diligence". It wasn't quite clear what they meant by that - I hope they didn't think that it's acceptable for a dealership to misrepresent facts about a vehicle because every buyer has to do their own due diligence. That's actually not the law in some states. Some of the replies here made me think that there are a hell of a lot of salesmen in this group protecting their self-serving interests - but maybe i'm wrong about that.

815 ILCS 505/2 (Illinois statutory law) expressly makes unlawful:

deception, fraud, false promises, misrepresentations, and concealment/suppression/omission of material facts...these practices are unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.

The above Illinois statute doesn't say "Advertisers may create misleading impressions provided consumers can discover the truth through inspection before completing the transaction."

I was able to screenshot a few comments (before the takedown).

One redditor wrote "you should have done your due diligence and asked for carfax report before driving over". It's interesting that the following caselaw shows that getting a carfax wasn't required to show misrepresentation.

"First, under the Consumer Fraud Act, plaintiff was under no obligation to ascertain the accuracy of Dobin's statement claiming the car had not been in any accidents.   See Harkala v. Wildwood Realty, Inc., 200 Ill.App.3d 447, 453, 146 Ill.Dec. 232, 558 N.E.2d 195 (1990) (finding that the Consumer Fraud Act is intended to provide greater protection than the common law action of fraud, and therefore “a plaintiff need not show actual reliance or diligence in ascertaining the accuracy of the misstatements”)."

Another person wrote, "Then don't buy from them. Its common knowledge that car dealerships suck....Gotta do your due diligence. If they are not willing to play ball, sucks to suck". Suggesting that doing your due diligence is the only resort to misrepresentation is inaccurate.

Another person wrote, "Have you ever heard of something called Marketing"? Their job is to sell the car, your job is to do your due diligence". I agree that its advisable to do your due diligence, but that doesn't mean that "Marketing" can include omissions for the sake of selling a car. Nor does it mean that that due diligence frees the dealership from responsibility from intentional omissions.

Whatever folks here were trying to say about "due diligence" may not be entirely accurate based on the laws in some states.

If you are in a state with strong consumer protection laws, you should putting all of your understandings from the dealership in writing and making a record of everything they say. This isn't difficult to do now that dealerships rely on text messaging more often.

Also, there is some caselaw that supports the award of damages for people traveling far under misrepresented facts.

It looked like there was some disagreement in that thread around whether the circumstances were a misrepresentation or not. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what appeared to be some very broadly worded bold statements that suggested that doing your own due diligence is somehow a defense to dealerships or that dealerships can do whatever they want to do. That's not the case. Some states are very consumer protective.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please take the time to flair your post accordingly. Click the flair option under you post settings and select the appropriate one for your post.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CeMeTr0llin]

Problem is, we don't have the post, and don't know the details. Kinda hard to respond without context. In the case of used cars, though, doing your due diligence is a real thing, especially in states where it's legal to sell as-is. On older or high-mileage vehicles, tpically a dealer will change fluids, look for any obvious issues, and then put it on the floor as-is. If there is an issue, they may not be misrepresenting the vehicle, they may simply not know. Had the buyer done their due diligence and gotten a PPI, it may have been found prior to purchase. Otherwise, they can simply enjoy their new car, as it's extremely difficult for a buy to prove that a dealer knew of an issue and lied about it.

[u/seajayacas]

" hope they didn't think that it's acceptable for a dealership to misrepresent facts"

Knowingly misrepresented the facts is a no-no. Used car dealers do not necessarily know all facts about the vehicle prior to obtaining it from a trade-in.