Category: Transportation

Even in the 9th Circuit, merely conveying contaminated groundwater isn’t “transportation” of a “solid waste”

Just before the July 4th holiday, two Judges on a Ninth Circuit panel reversed their earlier conclusion that conveying contaminated groundwater can give rise to RCRA liability for the “transportation” of a “solid waste”.  The panel now agrees that the City of Vacaville’s mere conveyance of drinking water contaminated by someone else is not something Congress intended to criminalize (or make subject to civil penalties) in RCRA.

The two Judges reiterated their view that the contaminated groundwater does fall within RCRA’s definition of “solid waste”.

This case first caught my attention in January after the panel’s first bite at this apple. (See https://insights.mintz.com/post/102hg8l/overturning-the-9th-circuit-vaca…).

I guess it is progress that the panel has corrected one of its two mistakes.  But to suggest that conveying groundwater containing parts per billion of anything is the transportation of a solid waste is completely unfaithful to the language of RCRA as the panel has now recognized with respect to the definition of “transportation” but not the definition of “solid waste”.

It bears repeating that the water the City is providing to the residents of Vacaville reportedly meets all applicable federal and state standards, including those established under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the State of California has stringent standards of its own.  It is those laws, and not the federal law having to do with the transportation and disposal of solid waste, that should apply.

As I wrote in January, if we think those laws, or any of our other federal and state environmental laws, need improving, we should lobby our elected officials to improve them.  But stoking the fears of an already cynical citizenry that our federal, state and local governments aren’t doing their job isn’t worth whatever citizen suit plaintiffs might stand to gain from misusing the laws that we do have.

“RCRA’s context makes clear that mere conveyance of hazardous waste cannot constitute ‘transportation’ under the endangerment provision,” writes Judge Patrick J. Bumatay in the new ruling, joined by District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, sitting on the 9th Circuit by designation.

Article By Jeffrey R. Porter of Mintz

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Auto Industry Picks up Capitol Hill Advocacy on Reports of Resurgence of Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) Proposal

Last week, General Motors Chair and CEO Marry Barra, Toyota Motor North America President and CEO Ted Ogawa, Ford Motor Company CEO James Farley, and Stellantis CEO Carlos Taveres sent a letter to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy revamping the industry’s advocacy for the inclusion of certain production tax credits ahead of a possible budget reconciliation package.

This letter comes on the heels of recent reports on Capitol Hill that the lynchpin to the Senate passing a budget reconciliation package, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), has had multiple in person conversations with Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer regarding a legislative path forward on the proposal.

The letter specifically advocated for the inclusion in any final BBB proposal of House-passed legislation, authored by Congressman Dan Kildee (D-MI-05) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) which would extend and build on current tax credits for EVs. Specifically, the provision would make consumers eligible for a $7,500 credit for eligible EV purchases for the first five years and an additional $4,500 credit if the EV is manufactured by a unionized facility, and an additional $500 credit if the EV uses an American made battery. In addition, the proposal would amend the current credit authority to make the credits refundable and transferrable at the time of purchase rather than consumers having to claim the credit on their tax return. Finally, the proposal would bar consumers making over $400,000 from eligibility and creates EV price limits to preclude luxury EVs from eligibility.

While this provision enjoys broad Democrat support in the Senate, Senator Manchin, foreign automakers and Tesla have publicly criticized the $4,500 bonus for union made vehicles.

Additional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funding that could be included in the bill include:

  • Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Rebate Program –$2 billion for eligible entities for covered expenses associated with EV supplies including grounding conductors, attachment plugs and other fittings, electrical equipment, batteries, among other things;
  • Electric Vehicle Charging Equity Program – $1 billion to provide technical assistance, education and outreach, or grants for projects that increase deployment and accessibility of EV supply equipment in underserved or disadvantaged communities;
  • General Services Administration Clean Vehicle Fleet program – $5 billion for GSA for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure for the Federal Fleet (excluding USPS and DOD vehicles);
  • United States Postal Service Clean Vehicle Fleet and Facility Maintenance – $3 billion for the USPS to purchase electric delivery vehicles and $4 billion for the purchase of related infrastructure; and
  • District of Columbia Clean Vehicle Fleet – $10 million for the District of Columbia for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure.

While it is unclear what would be in a final BBB deal or if it would have the votes to pass the House and the Senate, industry representatives are descending on Capitol Hill to push for critical funding and tax provisions that could have significant benefits to their respective industries, especially those provisions that could lower costs for producers and consumers in the current economic climate.

Article By William Ball of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Implications of the Use of the Defense Production Act in the U.S. Supply Chain

What owners, operators and investors need to know before accepting funds under the DPA

There has been an expansion of regulations related to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in both the United States and abroad. Current economic and geopolitical tensions are driving further expansion of FDI in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Whether by intent or coincidence, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) regulations that took effect February 13, 2020, included provisions that expanded the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and FIRRMA based upon the invocation of the Defense Production Act (DPA) – such as with President Biden’s recent Executive Order evoking the DPA to help alleviate the U.S. shortage of baby formula.

As background, the U.S. regulation of foreign investment in the U.S. began in 1975 with the creation of CFIUS. The 2007 Foreign Investment and National Security Act refined CFIUS and broadened the definition of national security. Historically, CFIUS was limited to technology, industries and infrastructure directly involving national security. It was also a voluntary filing. Foreign investors began structuring investments to avoid national security reviews. As a result, FIRRMA, a CFIUS reform act, was signed into law in August 2018. FIRRMA’s regulations took effect in February 2020.

It is not surprising that there are national security implications to U.S. food production and supply, particularly based upon various shortages in the near past and projections of further shortages in the future. What is surprising is that the 2020 FIRRMA regulations provided for the application of CFIUS to food production (and medical supplies) based upon Executive Orders that bring such under the DPA.

The Impact of Presidential DPA Executive Orders

The 2020 FIRMMA regulations included an exhaustive list of “critical infrastructure” that fall within CFIUS’s jurisdiction. Appendix A to the regulations details “Covered Investment Critical Infrastructure and Functions Related to Covered Investment Critical Infrastructure” and includes the following language:

“manufacture any industrial resource other than commercially available off-the-shelf items …. or operate any industrial resource that is a facility, in each case, that has been funded, in whole or in part, by […] (a) Defense Production Act of 1950 Title III program …..”

Title III of the DPA “allows the President to provide economic incentives to secure domestic industrial capabilities essential to meet national defense and homeland security requirements.” This was arguably invoked by President Trump’s COVID-19 related DPA Executive Orders regarding medical supplies (such as PPEs, tests and ventilators, etc.) and now President Biden’s Executive Order related to baby formula (and other food production).

Based on the intent of FIRRMA to close gaps in prior CFIUS coverage, the FIRRMA definition of “covered transactions” includes the following language:

“(d) Any other transaction, transfer, agreement, or arrangement, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of section 721.”

Taken together, the foregoing provision potentially gives CFIUS jurisdiction to review non-U.S. investments in U.S. companies covered by DPA Executive Orders that are outside of traditional M&A structures. This means that even non-controlling foreign investments in U.S. companies (such as food or medical producers) who receive DPA funding are subject to CFIUS review. More significantly, such U.S. companies can be subject to CFIUS review for a period of 60 months following the receipt of any DPA funding.

As a result of DPA-related FDI implications, owners, operators, and investors should carefully assess the implications of accepting funding under the DPA and the resulting restrictions on non-U.S. investors in businesses and industries not historically within the jurisdiction of CFIUS.

Article By David Vance Lucas of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more administrative and regulatory legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Navigating the Data Privacy Landscape for Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Implementing Effective Data Security

Autonomous vehicles can be vulnerable to cyber attacks, including those with malicious intent. Identifying an appropriate framework with policies and procedures will help mitigate the risk of a potential attack.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends a layered approach to reduce the likelihood of an attack’s success and mitigate ramifications if one does occur. NHTSA’s Cybersecurity Framework is structured around the five principles of identify, protect, detect, respond and recover, and can be used as a basis for developing comprehensive data security policies.

NHTSA goes on to describe how this approach “at the vehicle level” includes:

  • Protective/Preventive Measures and Techniques: These measures, such as isolation of safety-critical control systems networks or encryption, implement hardware and software solutions that lower the likelihood of a successful hack and diminish the potential impact of a successful hack.
  • Real-time Intrusion (Hacking) Detection Measures: These measures continually monitor signatures of potential intrusions in the electronic system architecture.
  • Real-time Response Methods: These measures mitigate the potential adverse effects of a successful hack, preserving the driver’s ability to control the vehicle.
  • Assessment of Solutions: This [analysis] involves methods such as information sharing and analysis of a hack by affected parties, development of a fix, and dissemination of the fix to all relevant stakeholders (such as through an ISAC). This layer ensures that once a potential vulnerability or a hacking technique is identified, information about the issue and potential solutions are quickly shared with other stakeholders.

Other industry associations are also weighing in on best practices, including the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center’s (Auto-ISAC) seven Key Cybersecurity Functions and, from a technology development perspective, SAE International’s J3061, a Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems to help AV companies “[minimize] the exploitation of vulnerabilities that can lead to losses, such as financial, operational, privacy, and safety.”

Article By Adam J. Brody, John J. Rolecki, Jeffrey M. Stefan II, Andrea M. Gumushian, and Justin M. Wolber at Varnum LLP

For more transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Varnum LLP

New Jersey Employers Are Now Required to Provide Written Notice Before Using Tracking Devices in Employee-Operated Vehicles

Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, which requires employers in the State to provide written notice to an employee before using a tracking device on a vehicle used by the employee. The new law, which went into effect on April 18, 2022, recognizes that employers may have a legitimate business interest in being able to track their workforce’s whereabouts—particularly when traveling or working offsite—while also reconciling that with the protection of workers’ privacy rights. At the very least, the days of covertly tracking employee vehicles appear to be a thing of the past.

The law defines “tracking device” as any “electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device,” with a specific carveout for devices used solely for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.

Significantly, the written notice requirement applies to the use of tracking devices in any vehicles used by an employee. It does not matter whether it is an employee’s personal vehicle (whether owned or leased) or company-owned or provided. Written notice must be provided regardless.

Failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements can carry substantial penalties. An employer who knowingly makes use of a tracking device in a vehicle used by an employee without providing written notice to the employee shall be subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000.00 for the first violation, and then up to $2,500.00 for each subsequent violation. These fines can add up quickly, especially for service businesses with large vehicle fleets, among others. Additionally, it is possible that failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements may implicate employee privacy rights that could lead to further civil exposure.

Private employers within the State must ensure they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply with the new law’s requirements and insulate their businesses from potential liability for violations. While it does not specify what the required “written notice” must look like or how it must be conveyed to employees, at minimum employers should update their employee handbooks as well as provide a stand-alone, written notice to employees, with signed confirmation and acknowledgement of receipt. Additionally, rule and regulations regarding GPS tracking of employee vehicles may vary from state to state, so employers with a multi-state presence or service area need to be aware of the different laws that may apply to them depending on where their employees are working.

Employers who have not yet updated their forms and procedures should immediately contact counsel and take steps to ensure that they are in compliance. Similarly, it may be prudent for employers who drafted their own policies to have experienced employment counsel perform a policy or handbook review and provide advice and guidance regarding employer responsibilities and obligations, including but not limited to ensuring compliance with New Jersey’s new vehicle tracking device law.

COPYRIGHT © 2022, STARK & STARK
Article By Cory Rand with Stark & Stark.
For more articles about New Jersey Legislation, visit the NLR New Jersey law section.

Navigating the Data Privacy Landscape for Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Best Practices

Autonomous and connected vehicles, and the data they collect, process and store, create high demands for strong data privacy and security policies. Accordingly, in-house counsel must define holistic data privacy best practices for consumer and B2B autonomous vehicles that balance compliance, safety, consumer protections and opportunities for commercial success against a patchwork of federal and state regulations.

Understanding key best practices related to the collection, use, storage and disposal of data will help in-house counsel frame balanced data privacy policies for autonomous vehicles and consumers. This is the inaugural article in our series on privacy policy best practices related to:

  1. Data collection

  2. Data privacy

  3. Data security

  4. Monetizing data

Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Data Protection and Privacy Issues

The spirit of America is tightly intertwined with the concept of personal liberty, including freedom to jump in a car and go… wherever the road takes you. As the famous song claims, you can “get your kicks on Route 66.” But today you don’t just get your kicks. You also get terabytes of data on where you went, when you left and arrived, how fast you traveled to get there, and more.

Today’s connected and semi-autonomous vehicles are actively collecting 100x more data than a personal smartphone, precipitating a revolution that will drive changes not just to automotive manufacturing, but to our culture, economy, infrastructure, legal and regulatory landscapes.

As our cars are becoming computers, the volume and specificity of data collected continues to grow. The future is now. Or at least, very near. Global management consultant McKinsey estimates “full autonomy with Level 5 technology—operating anytime, anywhere” as soon as the next decade.

This near-term future isn’t only for consumer automobiles and ride-sharing robo taxis. B2B industries, including logistics and delivery, agriculture, mining, waste management and more are pursuing connected and autonomous vehicle deployments.

In-house counsel must balance evolving regulations at the federal and state level, as well as consider cross-border and international regulations for global technologies. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the regulatory agency governing data privacy, alongside individual states that are developing their own regulations, with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) leading the way. Virginia and Colorado have new laws coming into effect in 2022, the California Privacy Rights Act comes into effect in 2023, and a half dozen more states are expected to enact new privacy legislation in the near future.

While federal and state regulations continue to evolve, mobility companies in the consumer and B2B mobility sectors need to make decisions today about their own data privacy and security policies in order to optimize compliance and consumer protection with opportunities for commercial success.

Understanding Types of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles

Autonomous, semi-autonomous, self-driving, connected and networked cars; in this developing category, these descriptions are often used interchangeably in leading business and industry publications. B2B International defines “connected vehicles (CVs) [as those that] use the latest technology to communicate with each other and the world around them” whereas “autonomous vehicles (AVs)… are capable of recognizing their environment via the use of on-board sensors and global positioning systems in order to navigate with little or no human input. Examples of autonomous vehicle technology already in action in many modern cars include self-parking and auto-collision avoidance systems.”

But SAE International and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) go further, defining five levels of automation in self-driving cars.

Levels of Driving Automation™ in Self-Driving Cars

 

 

Level 3 and above autonomous driving is getting closer to reality every day because of an array of technologies, including: sensors, radar, sonar, lidar, biometrics, artificial intelligence and advanced computing power.

Approaching a Data Privacy Policy for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles

Because the mobility tech ecosystem is so dynamic, many companies, though well intentioned, inadvertently start with insufficient data privacy and security policies for their autonomous vehicle technology. The focus for these early and second stage companies is on bringing a product to market and, when sales accelerate, there is an urgent need to ensure their data privacy policies are comprehensive and compliant.

Whether companies are drafting initial policies or revising existing ones, there are general data principles that can guide policy development across the lifecycle of data:

Collect

Use

Store

Dispose

Only collect the data you need

Only use data for the reason you informed the consumer

Ensure reasonable data security protections are in place

Dispose the data when it’s no longer needed

Additionally, for many companies, framing autonomous and connected vehicle data protection and privacy issues through a safety lens can help determine the optimal approach to constructing policies that support the goals of the business while satisfying federal and state regulations.

For example, a company that monitors driver alertness (critical for safety in today’s Level 2 AV environment) through biometrics is, by design, collecting data on each driver who uses the car. This scenario clearly supports vehicle and driver safety while at the same time implicates U.S. data privacy law.

In the emerging regulatory landscape, in-house counsel will continue to be challenged to balance safety and privacy. Biometrics will become even more prevalent in connection to identification and authentication, along with other driver-monitoring technologies for all connected and autonomous vehicles, but particularly in relation to commercial fleet deployments.

Developing Best Practices for Data Privacy Policies

In-house counsel at autonomous vehicle companies are responsible for constructing their company’s data privacy and security policies. Best practices should be set around:

  • What data to collect and when

  • How collected data will be used

  • How to store collected data securely

  • Data ownership and monetization

Today, the CCPA sets the standard for rigorous consumer protections related to data ownership and privacy. However, in this evolving space, counsel will need to monitor and adjust their company’s practices and policies to comply with new regulations as they continue to develop in the U.S. and countries around the world.

Keeping best practices related to the collection, use, storage and disposal of data in mind will help in-house counsel construct policies that balance consumer protections with safety and the commercial goals of their organizations.

A parting consideration may be opportunistic, if extralegal: companies that choose to advocate strongly for customer protections may be afforded a powerful, positive opportunity to position themselves as responsible corporate citizens.

© 2022 Varnum LLP
For more articles about transportation, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation section.

Do You Qualify to File an NHTSA Whistleblower Lawsuit?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently established a whistleblower program to address safety concerns regarding motor vehicle defects, violations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and violations of the Vehicle Safety Act. Like other qui tam lawsuits, NHTSA whistleblowers who come forward with valuable information regarding motor vehicle safety violations may be rewarded with significant financial compensation for their bravery.

What Issues Can Be Reported Under the NHTSA Whistleblower Program?

NHTSA whistleblowers may be eligible to receive a financial reward for reporting safety violations, including:

  • Potential vehicle safety defects: Examples include engine failure, defective airbags, and faulty breaks.

  • Noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: These are U.S. federal regulations regarding the design, construction, performance, and durability requirements for motor vehicles sold in America.

  • Violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act: This law requires motor vehicle manufacturers to follow certain safety standards to reduce the likelihood of accidents.

  • Violations of any motor vehicle safety reporting requirements

Who Can Become a NHTSA Whistleblower?

According to the NHTSA, any employee or contractor who works for a motor vehicle manufacturer, a motor vehicle parts supplier, or a motor vehicle dealership is eligible to become a whistleblower and receive protections under the Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act.

Why Should I File a Whistleblower Lawsuit?

Employees with inside information regarding vehicle safety defects or the violation of safety regulations can play a critical role in keeping our nation’s roads safer. Additionally, NHTSA whistleblowers who offer valuable information that leads to a settlement are entitled to a portion of the recovery as a financial reward. Employees of motor vehicle manufacturers who become whistleblowers are also protected from retaliation from their employers and their identities are kept hidden.

How Are NHTSA Whistleblowers Protected?

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicle manufacturers, parts suppliers, and dealerships are prohibited from retaliating against an employee for becoming an NHTSA whistleblower or for refusing to participate in actions that violated safety regulations. If retaliation does occur, a complaint should be made to OSHA who will further investigate the complaint.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Transportation and NHTSA in most cases are not permitted to share any details that would disclose the identity of a whistleblower.

How Are NHTSA Whistleblowers Rewarded?

If a whistleblower shares information regarding safety defects or safety regulation violations that leads to a successful NHTSA whistleblower lawsuit, the whistleblower could be rewarded financially. Whistleblowers may receive between 10 and 30 percent of what the U.S. Department of Transportation collects from the defendant vehicle manufacturer, parts supplier, or dealership. In many cases, whistleblowers who come forward about a corporation’s illegal activities or fraud receive a significant financial reward.

Successful NHTSA Whistleblower Lawsuits

Last year, Kia Motors America agreed to pay civil penalties worth $70 million for failing to issue a timely recall for an engine crankshaft defect in certain vehicles as well as for inaccuracies in defect and compliance reports. According to the NHTSA, the defect could have potentially led to engine stalling.

Hyundai Motors agreed to pay $140 million in civil penalties last year for failing to issue timely recalls regarding a potential fuel leak that could have occurred due to a low-pressure fuel hose. Heat could have caused the fuel hose to crack over time creating an engine fire hazard.

In 2020, Daimler Trucks North America agreed to $30 million in civil penalties for violations of the Vehicle Safety Act related to a number of untimely recalls. One of the recalls involved a brake light failure that could have potentially increased the risk of an accident.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more content about whistleblowers, visit the NLR White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights section.

Court Rejects Use of Eminent Domain for Recreational Trail

There has been a major development in the ongoing legal fight over the ability of the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District in Mahoning County to condemn private property for its bikeway project.

While previous efforts to stop the bikeway focused on a newly passed state law providing that a park district cannot take property for a recreational trail in counties with populations of a certain size (i.e., the size of Mahoning County), the property owner in The Board of Commissioners of the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District v. Hess tried a different tack, arguing that the statute authorizing park districts to take private property by eminent domain (Ohio Revised Code 1545.11) did not permit a taking for a recreational trail. Rather, it only permits such a taking for “conversion into forest reserves and for the conservation of the natural resources of the state.”

Although the trial court was not persuaded by this argument, the Seventh District Court of Appeals was. The Court of Appeals focused its analysis on whether the taking was to conserve natural resources, ultimately concluding it was not, despite the expansive definition of what constitutes a “natural resource,” i.e., any natural element of feature that supplies human needs; contributes to the health, welfare, and benefit of a community; and is essential for the well-being of such community and the proper enjoyment of its property.

In reaching its decision, the Court found it significant that another section of the Ohio Revised Code expressly empowers the Department of Natural Resources to condemn property for recreational trails. Based on this explicit statutory authorization, the Court was unwilling to read an implied authorization to exercise eminent domain for the same purpose into R.C. 1545.11.

The Court’s ruling was also influenced by the fact that the land at issue was in “a rural area where it appears the public need is speculative at best and the harm to the private property owners is great.”

Finally, the Court pointed out that the purpose of public recreation was not sufficient to authorize the Park District to take private property, reasoning that simply because something provides recreation does not mean it constitutes the conservation of natural resources. In this regard, the Court analogized the recreational trail at issue to movie theaters, shopping malls, and bowling alleys.

Based on these considerations, the Court held that the resolutions to appropriate passed by the Park District were insufficient because they did not include any language tying the demand for the recreational trail to the conservation of natural resources. The Court further held that the Park District abused its discretion by filing an eminent domain lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the property owner.

The Hess case demonstrates the well-established principle that statutory delegations of the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed in favor of property owners, and is a reminder to all eminent domain practitioners that the legal authority for a proposed taking must be closely scrutinized.

©2022 Roetzel & Andress
For more content about city planning, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure & Transportation section.

FTC Imposes Record-Setting $10M Fine Against Multistate Auto Dealer, Settling Charges of Racial Discrimination and Unauthorized Charges

On March 31, the FTC and Illinois State Attorney General announced a settlement of charges against a large, multistate auto dealer that allegedly discriminated against black consumers and included illegal junk fees for unwanted “add-ons” in customers’ bills.

Citing violations under the FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, and comparable Illinois laws, the complaint alleged that eight of the dealerships and two general managers of Illinois dealerships tacked on illegal fees for unwanted products to customers’ bills, often at the end of hours-long negotiations. These add-ons were allegedly buried in the consumers’ purchase contracts, which were sometimes upwards of 60-pages long, and sometimes added despite consumers specifically declining the products.

In addition, employees of the auto dealership also allegedly discriminated against black consumers during the process of financing vehicle purchases.  On average, black customers at the dealerships were charged $190 more in interest and paid $99 more for similar add-ons than comparable non-Latino white customers.

The multistate dealer will have to pay $10 million to settle the lawsuit per the stipulated order, the largest monetary judgment ever required in an FTC auto lending case.

Putting it into Practice:  From FTC Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the FTC appears poised to allege violations of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices in light of discrimination found to be based on disparate treatment or having a disparate impact.  Their statement discusses how discriminatory practices can be evaluated under the FTC’s three-part unfairness test and concludes that such conduct fits squarely into the kind of conduct that can be addressed by the FTC’s unfairness prong.  This joint statement echoes similar announcements by CFPB Director Chopra about the use of unfairness to combat discrimination more broadly (we discussed Director Chopra’s statement and updates to the CFPB’s exam procedures in a recent Consumer Finance and FinTech blog post here).

The size of the financial judgment in this case underscores the seriousness with which the FTC takes discriminatory practices in consumer credit transactions entered into by entities over which they have authority, which includes auto dealerships.  As the FTC becomes increasingly focused on enforcement of key laws to protect consumers against discriminatory conduct, companies should use these latest agency pronouncements as a reason to be on high alert for potential discriminatory outcomes in their business activities, even if unintentional.

Article By Moorari Shah, A.J. S. Dhaliwal, and Katie Daw of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Vehicle Sales Continue Their Depression

Anyone want to buy a vehicle? A better question might be: anyone got a vehicle for sale? Whether because of supply side issues, demand side issues, other issues, or all of the above, the fact remains that the first quarter of 2022 was not a good quarter for vehicle sales.  Just ask the manufactures who saw double digit drops in new light-vehicle sales: 23% for Honda; 20% for GM; 17% for Ford; 15% for Toyota; and 14% for Stellantis. While the numbers sound like doom and gloom, the manufacturers were not dour. Honda was quite positive about its numbers, noting that demand was strong and they just could not make enough vehicles to sell more, “we’re riding a bit of a roller coaster due to fluctuating parts supply issues, but strong March sales for Honda and Acura speak to the fact that demand remains strong and our retail deliveries are based primarily on what we can supply to our dealers.”

Some other interesting tidbits from sales data:

As a result, LMC Automotive and Cox Automotive each reduced their full-year U.S. light-vehicle sales forecast to 15.3 million units, citing a slower pace to recovery from market constraints. LMC referred to inventory levels as “critically low.”  Cox led its report by noting that not only are inventories low, but prices are high and sales incentives have vanished (note – this is how that entire supply/demand thing works).  Cox laid it all at the feet of supply: “Auto sales will basically be stuck at the current level until more supply arrives.”

Globally, the pandemic is not over. This continues to have the potential to drastically impact global vehicle volumes, especially in China. Global vehicle production could lose up to 1.5 million units this year if China’s COVID-Zero policy is maintained, according to estimates from Fitch Solutions quoted in Bloomberg. Most recently, phased lockdowns in Shanghai in response to COVID-19 outbreaks disrupted production for several major automakers and suppliers.

Add to that, the ongoing microchip shortage (for which no end appears in sight) is causing production downtime at various plants: Jeep production at Stellantis’ Mack Assembly plant in Detroit and Belvidere Assembly plant in Illinois; Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 production at GM’s Fort Wayne Assembly plant; and Mustang production at Ford’s Flat Rock Assembly plant. Let’s not forget the war in Ukraine, leading to German automakers potentially losing up to 150,000 units of production in March due to supply disruptions.

Oddly, the industry feels both healthy (revenue, profits, margins, etc.) and stressed with an unceratin future (see above) all at the same time.  Also oddly, but strangely not so oddly, nothing about this situation feels new.  Is this the new normal?

Article By Jeffrey A. Soble of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP