Sleazy Bait and Switch Marketing — Is this legal?
"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and   why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific   discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often   thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and   document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only   for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount   offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent   college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser”   payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A   variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually   thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take   them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s   Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a   financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a ""cost of doing business"" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with ""caveat emptor"" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face).  But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble." But.. what I really want to know.... is it illegal, particularly the   clause REQUIRING a trade in to qualify for the advertised price? The price is always net of all the parts of the deal. As an example they gave the price if you have $4000 trade in. If you have no trade in, or a trade in worth less than 4K, your final price for the new car will be more. Of course how do you know that the trade in value they are giving you is fair. It could be worth 6K but they are only giving you a credit of 4K. If you are going to trade in a vehicle while buying another vehicle the trade in should be a separate transaction. I always get a price quote for selling the old car before visiting the new car dealer. I do that to have a price point that I can judge while the pressure is on at the dealership.. Buying a car is a complex deal. The price, interest rate, length of loan, and the value of the trade in are all moving parts. It is even more complex if a lease is involved. They want to adjust the parts to be the highest profit that you are willing to agree to, while you think that you are getting a good deal. This is the fine print: All advertised amounts include all Hyundai incentives/rebates, dealer   discounts and $2500 additional down from your trade in value. +0% APR   for 72 months on select models subject to credit approval through HMF.   *No payments or 90 days subject to credit approval. Value will be added to end of loan balance. 15MY Sonata - Price excludes tax, title,   license, doc, and dealer fees. MSRP $22085- $2036 Dealer Discount -   $500 HMA Lease Cash - $500 HMA Value Owner Coupon - $1000 HMA Retail   Bonus Cash - $500 HMA Military Rebate - $500 HMA Competitive Owner   Coupon - $400 HMA College Grad Rebate - $500 HMA Boost Program - $4000   Trade Allowance = Net Price $12149. On approved credit. Certain   qualifications apply to each rebate. See dealer for details. Payment   is 36 month lease with $0 due at signing. No security deposit   required. All payment and prices include HMA College Grad Rebate, HMA   Military Rebate, HMA Competitive Owner Coupon and HMA Valued Owner   Coupon. Must be active military or spouse of same to qualify for HMA   Military Rebate. Must graduate college in the next 6 months or within   the last 2 years to qualify for HMA College Grad rebate. Must own   currently registered Hyundai to qualify for HMA Valued Owner Coupon.   Must own qualifying competitive vehicle to qualify for HMA Competitive   Owner Coupon.
&gt;. The store has to match the price. They don't have a choice.  Here in Canada we have a book store called Chapters.   They won't price match their own online prices in store.   I haven't shopped there in 10 years.     If Best Buy is smart, they'll stop the price match.  If you want instant gratification for your purchases, you should pay for it.   If you go in and the TV is priced at X, you pay X.   If you go home and see it's a different price online, buyer beware.  I think that'd be a brilliant move.  Make the brick and mortars charge more for the luxury of shopping in a store.      It's sleazy, but honestly not a bad business model.  \ Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is.  On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.) Are things getting better yet or are things still a mess? I have heard people say that right now is a 'good' time to take out a   loan, and that it is a buyer's market in real estate. Something to consider here is what intentions do you have for the real estate you'd buy.  If you intend to sell quickly, then selling into a buyer's market doesn't sound like a great idea.  While real estate may be cheap, there can be the question of how long do you think this will last?  How much of a burden on time and energy are you expecting to take if you do switch residences or buy an investment property? But more specifically, are there any hidden details that come with   taking a loan out when interest rates are low that I should be aware   of? I'd be careful to note if the rate is fixed for the entire length of the loan or does it adjust over time.  If it can adjust then there is the possibility of those adjustments going up. Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it.  This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy.  Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC If you're selling a product of actual value, and willing to do the recruiting hustle then a Network Marketing Scheme might work out for you. If you can't make money just selling the product, or it's not a product you'd support I would stay far away. In the US, it is my understanding that MLM is legal if your earnings can surpass your sponsor's. Disclaimer: I did Quixtar (Amway online) in college. But I didn't succeed because I didn't nag all my family and friends to join nor hustle the products. I have met folks who have actually done well with it, and I think without really screwing anyone else over. "I can't imagine how a company that has all the proof it needs of its existence and business dealings is able to be challenged in this way. Fact is, they were doing business first. The insurance company has no claim to make. (I'm not a lawyer, my observation there is based on what's right and logical...perhaps the law disagrees and if so, that law is as crooked as the judge who thinks the request for the insurance company's business dealings off ""frivolous"").  They may have messed up. That's because the evidence looks pretty ""open and shut"".   Too bad for them they're getting pushed around on the basis of ""I'm bigger"" I guess, huh? I don't see why this means they're on their own.  Edit: I didn't see the part about the dillusion suit. Definitely brought it on themselves, still being harassed; and insurance company has no right to shut them or their site down." "Not sure about that one.   Stark Laws (there is also an earlier, aptly named ""anti kickback statute"") are the ones to prevent ""kickbacks"", as well as to prevent self referral in cases where there would be financially beneficial to do so (to prevent fraud)." "I was not aware of that.  However, the rest of that article seems to point in Google's favor.  &gt; The public suffers under a monopolistic market because it does not have the quantity of goods or the low prices that a competitive market could offer.  Doesn't apply.  &gt; ...the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed.  Google may have 65% of the share of internet searches, but not the online travel booking business.  You can't say they've cheated to win the search market, and you can't say they have a monopoly in the online travel booking business.  &gt; Once sufficient monopoly power has been proved, the Sherman Act requires a showing that the company in question engaged in unfair conduct.  Finally, even if they were somehow declared a monopoly, you'd have to prove they were being unfair to competitors.  Eliminating competitors from search results might be unfair, but just listing your own product at the top of the list seems a fairly weak argument.  If the government says that Google's product at the top of the list is unfair, questions will then be raised about the entire order of the list.  How far down should Google's listings be?  Is this going to spread to all of Google's side-projects that show up in their search results?  What if Google placed their listing in the paid advertising section?  Is that still ""cheating""?  Does a company not have the right to show new products to its existing customers?  I don't see Google losing this battle in court, but then, I don't even see it going to court.  Google will go out of its way to appease the complainers."