On Thursday, the Federal Trade Commission released its top consumer complaints for 2013. Identity theft tops the chart, with "Auto Related Complaints" coming in at #7. Dealerships should take steps to protect the data in their Dealership Management System (DMS).

If a plaintiff’s lawyer sends you a demand letter, you should immediately send it to your own lawyer for a response. A decision that the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court handed down last month shows why.

The Federal Trade Commission and the County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs announced a nationwide enforcement action targeting deceptive auto dealer advertisements—called “Operation Steer Clear”—which has already resulted in the voluntary settlement of complaints against nine new and used auto dealerships across the country.

This recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has potentially given consumer advocates carte blanche to open the floodgates of discovery into deal jackets to obtain information concerning the citizenry of putative class members in the context of a mere pleading motion.

Business is hailing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AMEX III as the panacea for the failure of state courts to enforce certain arbitration agreements on the ground that they are unconscionable, but what effect will this have on the California Supreme Court?

In the last six months, California courts have drastically limited an employer’s ability to utilize a piece-rate system to pay its employees.  Important court rulings have made it clear that each “hour worked,” as defined by the Labor Code, must be compensated and itemized if employers intend to exert any type of control, issue any directive, or place any requirement on their employees during non-piece-rate times.

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013, Judge Jed Beebe in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court denied Arturo Martinez’s motion for class certification against Santa Maria Ford for alleged DMV fee lumping violations under the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The National Association of Dealer Councel (NADC) featured the article Enforcing arbitration agreements: Unconscionability is still the battleground, but for how long?, by Christian Scali, in their June 2013 issue of Defender. In it he reviews the current state of laws governing pre-dispute arbitration agreements in California.

In the September 2013 edition of News Trax—published by the Auto Dealers Office Management Association (ADOMA)—you will find Christian Scali's article, titled Is your Red Flags Program up to date? In it he discusses the FTC's revised business guide on the Red Flags Identity Theft Rule, issued on June 12, 2013.

As those who read this blog regularly already know, courts have divided into two camps over the enforceability of contractual arbitration agreements. Both camps claim to have the same starting point: the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) public policy favoring arbitration, under which parties who contractually agree to arbitrate a dispute are absolutely bound to do so unless the agreement is clearly “unconscionable;” i.e., so unreasonable that it shocks the conscience.

In a press release issued earlier this week (September 3, 2013), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated that it has entered into a proposed consent decree with two franchised automobile dealerships for allegedly deceptive online advertising; one in the Cleveland area and the other in the Baltimore area.

Offered the granting of a wish, many employers—especially those who are about to fire someone—might wish that their employees could not easily sue them. In MacDonald v. State of California (2013 WL 5422792), the California Court of Appeal last week went some way toward making that wish come true.

Uber is no longer just a German superlative; it is now also a high-end car service. Founded in San Francisco in 2009 as a small start-up, the company has already expanded to twenty-two metropolitan areas across the country, and twenty cities in Canada, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal recently stating that non-compete litigation in this country has risen by over 60% in the last decade as more employees leave their employers to open their own businesses. And that's just court decisions.

On July 17, 2013, as reported in the California Auto Dealer Newsletter, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Downtown LA Motors, LP in the case of Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP.

On June 12, 2013, the FTC issued a revised business guide on the Red Flags Identity Theft Rule. Recently, the California New Car Dealers Association issued a reminder about the importance of updating your Red Flags Identity Theft Program.

Earlier this year, California’s Supreme Court decided Harris v. City of Santa Monica, in which it raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking to prove that their employer illegally discriminated against them. Plaintiffs must now prove that discrimination was a substantial factor, not just a motivating factor in an employer’s decision to terminate employment.

On Monday, upholding the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) strong deference to arbitral decisions, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held, in Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, that where an arbitrator interprets an arbitration agreement to include class arbitration, even if that interpretation is incorrect, it will be upheld.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has been clear that it will not delay the July 1, 2013 start date of the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations announced in December 2011. Here's a quick status of attacks to these new HOS rules and a summary of the changes, so you can be prepared.

What happens if your franchisor terminates your franchise or business is so lousy that you can't make a go of it, but you still have two, three or as many as ten more years to go on your commercial real estate lease? Well, that depends.