Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment |
---|
Topics: Nissan
|
Donald S. Clark
Federal Trade Commission
March 21, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-6534] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: March 21, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 902 3383] Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would require, among other things, a California-based corporation to disclose clearly and prominently in each advertisement either any significant restrictions that apply to obtaining a promotional benefit in connection with a test-drive offer, or that there are significant restrictions that apply to obtaining the benefit, and would prohibit the respondent from misrepresenting any conditions, restrictions or limitations on any promotional benefit it offers consumers in the future. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 1994. ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip Broyles, Michael Milgrom or Melissa Sternlicht, FTC/Cleveland Regional Office, 668 Euclid Ave., suite 520-A, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. (216) 522-4210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the following consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Sec. 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist In the Matter of: Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., a corporation. The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., a corporation (``proposed respondent''), and it now appearing that proposed respondent is willing to enter into an agreement containing an Order to Cease and Desist from the use of the acts or practices being investigated, It is hereby agreed by and between proposed respondent, by its duly authorized officer and its attorney and counsel for the Federal Trade Commission that: 1. Proposed respondent is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 18501 South Figueroa Street, Carson, California 90248 (Mailing Address: Post Office Box 191, Gardena, California 90248-0191). 2. Proposed respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the draft Complaint here attached. 3. Proposed respondent waives: (a) Any further procedural steps; (b) The requirement that the Commission's Decision contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusion of law; (c) All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or contest the validity of the Order entered pursuant to this Agreement; and (d) All claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 4. This Agreement shall not become part of the public record of the proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this Agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft Complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for a period of sixty (60) days and information with respect thereto publicly released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance of this Agreement and so notify proposed respondent, in which event it will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue and serve its Complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require) and Decision, in disposition of the proceeding. 5. This Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by proposed respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in the attached draft Complaint, or that the facts alleged in the draft complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true. 6. This Agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may, without further notice to proposed respondent, (1) issue its Complaint corresponding in form and substance with the draft Complaint and its Decision containing the following Order to Cease and Desist in disposition of the proceeding, and (2) make information public with respect thereto. When so entered, the Order to Cease and Desist shall have the same force and effect and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the same manner and within the same time provided by statute for other orders. The Order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the United States Postal Service of the Complaint and Decision containing the agreed-to Order to proposed respondent's address as stated in this Agreement shall constitute service. Proposed respondent waives any right it may have to any other manner of service. The Complaint attached hereto may be used in construing the terms of the Order. No agreement, understanding, representation, or interpretation not contained in the Order or the Agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the Order. 7. Proposed respondent has read the proposed Complaint and Order contemplated hereby. Proposed respondent understands that once the Order has been issued, it will be required to file one or more compliance reports showing that it has fully complied with the Order. Proposed respondent further understands that it may be liable for civil penalties in the amount provided by law for each violation of the Order after it becomes final. Order Definitions 1. ``Promotional benefit'' as used herein shall mean any prize, award or consideration, including, but not limited to, money, favorable credit terms and optional equipment packages, having a bona fide retail value over $25. 2. ``Clearly and prominently'' as used herein shall mean as follows: (a) In a television or videotape advertisement, the disclosure shall be presented simultaneously in both the audio and video portions of the advertisement. The audio disclosure shall be delivered in a volume and cadence and for a duration sufficient for an ordinary consumer to hear and comprehend it. The video disclosure shall be of a size and shade, and shall appear on the screen for a duration, sufficient for an ordinary consumer to read and comprehend it. (b) In a print advertisement, the disclosure shall be in close proximity to the representation that triggers the disclosure in at least (12) point type. (c) In a radio advertisement, the disclosure shall be delivered in a volume and cadence and for a duration sufficient for an ordinary consumer to hear and comprehend it. I It is ordered that respondent Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any motor vehicle in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, in any manner, directly or by implication, that persons who test drive a Nissan motor vehicle can readily obtain a promotional benefit when significant restrictions prevent consumers from readily obtaining that promotional benefit without disclosing clearly and prominently in each advertisement in which the representation is made either the significant restrictions or that there are significant restrictions that apply to obtaining the promotional benefit. II It is further ordered that respondent Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any motor vehicle in or affecting commence, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting, in any manner, directly or by implication, the existence, nature or extent of any condition, restriction or limitation on any promotional benefit offered to consumers. III It is further ordered that, for three (3) years from the date that the advertisements are last disseminated, respondent shall maintain and, upon request, make available to the Commission for inspection and copying: (A) Copies of all advertisements subject to Paragraph I or II of this Order; (B) Copies of all communications to affiliated dealers and all information and other materials supplied by respondent to the dealer in connection with any representation subject to Paragraphs I or II of this Order; and (C) All correspondence received from consumers, whether received by respondent or by an agent of respondent, related to any promotional benefit program advertised in a manner subject to Paragraphs I or II of this Order. IV It is further ordered that respondent shall, within sixty (60) days of service of this Order, distribute a copy of this Order to each of its operating divisions and to each officer and other person responsible for the preparation or review of advertising material including outside advertising agencies, and to a representative of each of its affiliated dealers and shall secure from each such person a signed statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of this Order. V It is further ordered that respondent shall notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any proposed change in the corporation such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of this Order. VI It is further ordered that respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after service of this Order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner in which it has complied with this Order. Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement to a proposed consent order from Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., a marketer of new automobiles. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for the reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order. The Commission's complaint charges that the proposed respondents disseminated advertisements for the Nissan Stanza Challenge Program, a promotional program in which consumers were invited to drive the Nissan Stanza and receive $100 if, after driving the Stanza, they bought one of two competing cars--either a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord. The complaint charges that Nissan represented that consumers could readily obtain the $100 when, in fact, in order to obtain it, the consumer could not purchase the competing vehicle on the same day as the test drive nor more than seven days thereafter, and had to purchase, take delivery and submit detailed proof of purchase to Nissan within the seven day time period. Therefore, the Commission charged that the representation that the $100 could be readily obtained was false and misleading. The Commission also charged that the existence of the restrictions mentioned above would have been material to consumers in deciding whether to test drive the Stanza or otherwise take part in the program. Therefore, failure to disclose that the program had significant restrictions was deceptive. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits Nissan from representing that consumers who test drive a Nissan vehicle can readily obtain a promotional benefit, when significant restrictions prevent consumers from obtaining the promotional benefit, unless Nissan also discloses either (1) the restrictions that apply, or (2) that significant restrictions apply to obtaining the promotional benefit.\1\ Part II of the order prohibits Nissan from misrepresenting the existence, nature, or extent of any condition, restriction or limitation on any promotional benefit offered to consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The proposed order defines ``promotional benefit'' as any prize, award, or consideration, including but not limited to, money, favorable credit terms and optional equipment packages, having a bona fide retail value over $25. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The remainder of the proposed order consists of standard recordkeeping and compliance provisions. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order, or to modify in any way their terms. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. Joint Dissenting Statement of Chairman Janet D. Steiger and Commissioner Dennis A. Yao in Nissan Motor Corporation of USA, File No. 902-3383 We dissent from issuance of this proposed consent order with Nissan Motor Corp. Because the proposed order does not sufficiently remedy one of the alleged law violations, it may give implicit approval to the use of seemingly attractive promotional offers that many consumers simply cannot utilize because of limitations such as severe time restrictions or extremely difficult documentation requirements. Through advertisements for the Nissan Stanza ``Challenge Program'' Nissan ran a promotional program inviting consumers to come to a Nissan dealership, test drive the Nissan Stanza and receive $100 if, after driving the Stanza, they bought either a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord. The advertising expressly stated that there was ``no catch'' to this offer. What consumers were not told was that, in order to obtain the $100, it was necessary to purchase and take delivery of the Camry or Accord and submit detailed proof of purchase (including documents not usually retained by consumers after purchase) to Nissan, all within seven days (but not on the same day as the test drive). The complaint alleges that the failure to disclose that the program had such significant restrictions was deceptive, and that Nissan's explicit advertising claim that the offer had ``no catch'' falsely represented that consumers could readily obtain the $100 payment. In our view, the proposed consent order may do little to remedy the failure to disclose allegation. Part I of the proposed order prohibits Nissan from representing, directly or by implication, that persons who test drive a Nissan can ``readily obtain'' a promotional benefit--when significant restrictions prevent consumers from readily obtaining that benefit--unless Nissan also discloses either those restrictions or that significant restrictions apply. Since paragraph 5 of the complaint uses the same term, ``readily obtain,'' to characterize the express ``no catch'' claim in Nissan's ad, and paragraph 4 of the complaint only references the advertisement with an express ``no catch'' claim, the order could be interpreted to require disclosure only when language similar to ``no catch'' or ``no catches'' is used. To suggest otherwise--namely that the order requires disclosure any time Nissan offers a promotion and uses very general language such as ``Come on in and get a [benefit]''--would read out of the order the ``readily obtain'' limiting language. Consequently, although we understand that some would read the order differently, the proposed order might be interpreted as standing for the proposition that advertisements need not contain any disclosure of the nature or even existence of limiting conditions, no matter how onerous, unusual, or unexpected, unless the advertiser uses language similar to a ``no catches'' claim. Moreover, even when an affirmative expression such as ``no catches'' is used in making an offer, the order would allow an advertiser to disclose only that significant restrictions apply to the offer, not what those restrictions are or where the consumer can obtain additional information about them. Although reasonable minds can differ on whether a disclosure that ``significant restrictions'' apply would adequately inform consumers when ready availability is implied in an advertisement, such a disclosure for an express ``no catches'' claim is manifestly contradictory. This order would seem to allow advertisers to claim to consumers that there are no catches in connection with the offer, so long as the ad elsewhere discloses that there are significant restrictions. The use of such contradictory statements in the same advertisement conflicts with Commission precedent. See Commission Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 110, 180-81. Finally, the proposed order does not contain a point of sale disclosure requirement. Consequently, even if consumers understand the disclosure of ``significant restrictions'' as overriding the express ``no catches'' claim, there is no sure way of learning about the restrictions. We do not suggest advertisers must disclose every limitation on their offers in advertising. Consumers generally expect that offers have reasonable time limits and other conditions. This order may suggest, however, that even severe restrictions--i.e., those that make the offer impractical or impossible for many consumers to redeem--need not be disclosed in an adequate fashion. Such an approach is not without cost to consumers--especially in cases, such as this one, where consumers usually shop for the product by visiting sales locations and, consequently, where such offers could induce them to make a special visit. Separate Statement of Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga, in Which Commissioners Deborah K. Owen and Roscoe B. Starek, III, Join, in Nissan Motor Corporation of USA File No. 902-3383 I write to respond to the concerns expressed in my colleagues' joint dissenting statement about how the consent order in this matter might be interpreted and what it would seem to allow in connection with other promotional advertisements. Like other consent orders, this order was negotiated in response to particular facts and circumstances. Although the order identifies conduct the Commission will not allow, no legal inference properly can be drawn that conduct not mentioned in the complaint and order has been approved. The legal standards by which promotional advertisements are measured are well established in sources having precedential value. As always, advertisers would be well-advised to consult these sources to determine the legal standards to which they must conform. [FR Doc. 94-6534 Filed 3-18-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-M