The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against DK Automation and its owners, Kevin David Hulse and David Shawn Arnett for using unfounded claims of big returns to entice consumers into moneymaking schemes involving Amazon business packages, business coaching, and cryptocurrency. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants promised consumers that they could “generate passive income on autopilot” when the truth was that few consumers ever made money from these schemes.

“DK Automation ripped off consumers by manipulating reviews and making empty promises of big returns on cryptocurrency investment schemes and bogus business programs,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They ignored warnings that these practices were illegal, and now they are paying the price.”

A proposed court order would require the defendants to turn over $2.6 million to be used to refund consumers harmed by their deception, as well as requiring them to stop their deceptive earnings pitches and follow the law.

The FTC’s complaint notes that the defendants continued to use deceptive earnings claims even after they received Notices of Penalty Offenses regarding money-making opportunities and endorsements from the agency.

The defendants sold their Amazon programs under a number of different names, including AMZDFY, Amazon Done For You, and Amazon Done With You. According to the complaint, they promised consumers a “100% turnkey” business selling products on Amazon and charged consumers as much as $100,000 for the program. Their marketing and sales pitches were filled with fake consumer reviews touting huge profits.

In addition to the Amazon business packages, the defendants also pitched supposed cryptocurrency investment services that included their “#1 secret passive income crypto trading bot,” which they claimed could “generate profits for you even while you sleep.” The complaint alleges that they charged consumers thousands of dollars for the supposed service. A June 2022 FTC data spotlight showed that in one 15-month period, consumers reported losing $575 million to cryptocurrency investment scams.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants in the case harmed consumers by:

• Deceiving them about potential earnings: DK Automation and its owners made multiple claims about the supposed huge profits consumers could make with their programs, using testimonials that did not reflect the experience of any consumer in the FTC’s investigation. When they included disclaimers, the complaint alleges that they were in such small type or removed from the claims that they were essentially useless to consumers.

• Suppressing Negative Reviews: In many cases, the company manipulated online reviews by falsifying positive reviews and flagging negative reviews that resulted in their removal. In addition, the company agreed to provide refunds to consumers on the condition they remove their complaints. Finally, the FTC charged that defendants threatened to sue a dissatisfied consumer who spoke about his negative experience with the company and added language to their contracts to prevent consumers from leaving negative reviews.

• Not providing required disclosures: The defendants regularly failed to give consumers the information that is required by the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule when selling their programs. These required disclosures include key information that can help consumers have a full picture about the opportunity being sold to them.

Enforcement Action

The defendants have agreed to a proposed court order that would require them to:

• Back up their claims: The defendants would be prohibited from making earnings claims to consumers that are deceptive, and they would be required to have information in writing to back up their claims.

• Stop deceiving consumers: They would also be prohibited from misleading consumers about the nature of any good or service they sell, including the likelihood of profits, whether testimonials are reflective of a normal consumer’s experience, or any other key information.

• Stop interfering with reviews and complaints: The defendants would be prohibited from taking actions that restrict consumers’ ability to file complaints or leave negative reviews, including requiring consumers to sign contracts that limit their ability to complain.

• Provide money for refunds: The defendants would be required to provide at least $2.6 million to the FTC to be used to refund consumers.

The order includes a total monetary judgment of nearly $53 million, which was partially suspended due to an inability to pay. If the defendants are found to have lied about their financial condition, then the full amount of the judgment would be immediately due.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and final order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is extending by six months the deadline for companies to comply with some of the changes the agency implemented to strengthen the data security safeguards financial institutions must put in place to protect their customers’ personal information. The deadline for complying with some of the updated requirements of the Safeguards Rule is now June 9, 2023.

The Safeguards Rule requires non-banking financial institutions, such as mortgage brokers, motor vehicle dealers, and payday lenders, to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive security program to keep their customers’ information safe.

The Commission is extending the deadline based on reports, including a letter from the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, that there is a shortage of qualified personnel to implement information security programs and that supply chain issues may lead to delays in obtaining necessary equipment for upgrading security systems. These difficulties were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues may make it difficult for financial institutions, especially small ones, to come into compliance by the deadline.

The FTC approved changes to the Safeguards Rule in October 2021 that include more specific criteria for what safeguards financial institutions must implement as part of their information security programs. While many provisions of the rule went into effect 30 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register, other sections of the rule were set to go into effect on December 9, 2022. The provisions of the updated rule specifically affected by the six-month extension include requirements that covered financial institutions:

• designate a qualified individual to oversee their information security program,
• develop a written risk assessment,
• limit and monitor who can access sensitive customer information,
• encrypt all sensitive information,
• train security personnel,
• develop an incident response plan,
• periodically assess the security practices of service providers, and
• implement multi-factor authentication or another method with equivalent protection for any individual accessing customer information.

The Commission vote to extend the deadline was 4-0.  Commissioner Wilson issued a separate statement.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $9.8 million to consumers who were harmed by Illinois-based Napleton Automotive Group’s junk fees and discriminatory practices.

The agency is sending 66,355 checks, averaging $147 each. Recipients should cash checks within 90 days. Consumers who have questions about their refund should call the refund administrator, Epiq, at 1-888-691-6050. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.

The FTC and the State of Illinois sued Napleton Automotive Group in March 2022, alleging that Napleton employees were sneaking illegal junk fees for unwanted “add-ons” onto vehicle purchases and discriminating against Black consumers. According to the joint complaint, eight of the company’s dealership illegally tacked on junk fees for unwanted “add-on” products such as payment insurance and paint protection, costing consumers hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The complaint also alleged that Napleton discriminated against Black consumers by charging them more for add-ons and financing.

The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2021, Commission actions led to more than $472 million in refunds to consumers across the country, but these refunds were the result of cases resolved before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that the Commission lacks authority under Section 13(b) to seek monetary relief in federal court. Because of that ruling, the Commission no longer has its strongest tool to return money to consumers, and it will become harder to provide refunds to consumers harmed by deceptive and unfair conduct. The Commission has urged Congress to restore its ability to get money back for consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $830,300 to 1,376 people who began their enrollment at Saint James School of Medicine between Fall 2016 and Summer 2021. The for-profit medical school in the Caribbean and its Illinois-based operators allegedly misled prospective students about their chances of success—both in passing a medical school standardized test and in matching with a residency program after graduation.

In April 2022, the FTC took action against Saint James and its operators, alleging that since at least April 2018, the medical school lured students with false guarantees of student success.  According to the complaint, in sales calls, marketing materials, and presentations, the defendants deceived consumers with false claims of very high pass rates for a critical medical school standardized test, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Exam. In reality, the pass rate was only 35 percent. Additionally, the defendants claimed Saint James students’ residency match rates were “the same” as American medical schools. However, since 2017, their match rates have been approximately 20 percent lower than advertised.

In the final order with the FTC, Saint James and its operators were ordered to pay money towards refunds and cancel certain debts for students harmed by the deceptive marketing. They were also banned from misrepresenting their test pass rate or residency match rate or making any other unsubstantiated claims. They were also required to notify consumers whose debts were canceled.

The Federal Trade Commission has stopped internet phone service provider Vonage from imposing junk fees and creating obstacles to those who try to cancel their service. The FTC alleges that the company used dark patterns to make it difficult for consumers to cancel and often continued to illegally charge them even after they spoke to an agent directly and requested cancellation. Under the proposed court order, Vonage will be required to pay $100 million in refunds to consumers harmed by the company’s actions, make its cancellation process simple and transparent, and stop charging consumers without their consent.

“Today the FTC delivers on our commitment to protect consumers from illegal dark pattern tactics by companies that prevent consumers from cancelling their services,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This record-breaking settlement should remind companies that they must make cancellation easy or face serious legal consequences.”

New Jersey-based Vonage, a subsidiary of Ericsson, provides internet-based telephone services (commonly known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP) to consumers and small business. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company bills their customers for these services on an automatic basis every month, either by charging a credit or debit card or withdrawing money from a customer’s bank account directly. Consumer accounts ranged from $5 to around $50 each month, while business accounts could cost up to thousands of dollars each month. In many cases, the company signs customers up using “negative option” plans that begin with a free trial, but require the customer to take action to avoid being charged.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that while Vonage has provided numerous ways to easily sign up for their plans, it has made the cancellation process markedly more difficult, leaving consumers and businesses on the hook for services they no longer want. Vonage’s practices, the complaint alleges, harmed consumers in numerous ways, specifically by:

• Eliminating cancellation options: Despite allowing its customers to sign up for services online, over the phone, and through other venues, the complaint alleges that starting in 2017, Vonage made the decision to force customers to cancel only by speaking to a live “retention agent” on the phone. The complaint notes that this practice runs counter to Vonage’s own advice to its clients not to “frustrate customers by requiring them to contact you for support that should be available on a self-service basis” and that “[i]t should be just as easy to return your product as it is to buy it.”

• Making cancellation process difficult: In addition to forcing customers into one cancellation method, it made that method difficult. The company created significant cancellation hurdles, including by making it difficult to find the phone number on the company website, not consistently transferring customers to that number from the normal customer service number, offering reduced hours the line was available and failing to provide promised callbacks. The complaint cites one internal Vonage email saying customers were “sent in a circle when they want to downgrade or remove the service.”

• Surprising customers with expensive junk fees when they tried to cancel: In many cases, customers who are able to access the cancellation line are told they will have to pay an unexpected early termination fee that was not clearly disclosed when they signed up for Vonage service. In some cases, these fees were in the hundreds of dollars.

• Continuing to charge customers even after they canceled: Customers who managed to speak to an agent and request cancellation often found that their accounts continued to be charged. Even when they contacted Vonage to complain, they received only partial refunds of the money they were charged without authorization.

Enforcement Action

As a result of the FTC’s action, Vonage has agreed to a proposed court order that would require it to:

• Stop unauthorized charges: Vonage will be required to have consumers’ express, informed consent to charge them.

• Simplify cancellation: Vonage will be required to put in place a simple cancellation process that is easy to find, easy to use, and will be available through the same method the consumer used to enroll (e.g., website, email address, or other application).

• Stop using dark patterns: The order prohibits Vonage from using dark patterns to frustrate consumers’ cancellation efforts.

• Be upfront with consumers about subscription plans: The order requires Vonage to be upfront with customers about the terms of any negative option subscription plans, including any action that must be taken to avoid being charged and timeline in which that action is required.

• Pay $100 million to be used for refunds: Vonage would be required to turn over $100 million to the FTC to be used to provide refunds to consumers.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against education technology provider Chegg Inc. for its lax data security practices that exposed sensitive information about millions of its customers and employees, including Social Security numbers, email addresses and passwords. Chegg allegedly failed to fix problems with its data security despite experiencing four security breaches since 2017. The FTC’s proposed order requires the company to bolster its data security, limit the data the company can collect and retain, offer users multifactor authentication to secure their accounts, and allow users to access and delete their data.

“Chegg took shortcuts with millions of students’ sensitive information,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Today’s order requires the company to strengthen security safeguards, offer consumers an easy way to delete their data, and limit information collection on the front end. The Commission will continue to act aggressively to protect personal data.”

The California-based company has sold educational products and services targeted to high school and college students, including online tutoring and a college scholarship search service. Chegg collects a variety of personal information about its users. For example, as part of its scholarship search service, Chegg has collected information about users’ religious denominations, heritage, dates of birth, sexual orientation, and disabilities. It also has collected and stored sensitive personal information about its employees, including dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial and medical data.

In a complaint, the FTC alleged that Chegg failed to protect the personal information it has collected from its users and employees. As a result, the company experienced four data breaches that exposed that personal information. The first occurred in September 2017, when multiple Chegg employees fell for a phishing attack that allowed a hacker to gain access to employees’ direct deposit information. Less than a year later, a former Chegg contractor used login information the company shared with employees and outside contractors to access one of Chegg’s third-party cloud databases containing personal information of approximately 40 million customers. The exposed personal information included names, email addresses, passwords, and for certain users, sensitive scholarship data such as dates of birth, parents’ income range, sexual orientation, and disabilities. In the next two years, Chegg experienced two more data breaches involving phishing attacks that successfully targeted Chegg employees. These attacks exposed sensitive data about Chegg’s employees including medical and financial information.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that these data breaches stemmed from Chegg’s poor data security practices, which included:

 

• Failing to implement basic security measures: The FTC alleged that despite its promises, Chegg failed to use “commercially reasonable security measures” to protect personal information it collected and stored. For example, at various times throughout the relevant time period, it did not require employees to use multifactor authentication measures to log into its third-party databases, allowed employees and contractors to use a single login to access those databases, and failed to monitor its network and databases for threats.
• Storing information insecurely: Chegg stored personal data on its cloud storage databases in plain text and used until at least 2018 outdated and weak encryption to protect user passwords.
• Failing to Develop Adequate Security Policies and Training: Even after experiencing three phishing attacks, the company failed to provide adequate security training to employees and contractors and implement a written security policy until January 2021.

 

As a result of these failures, some of the data about Chegg’s 40 million customers stolen by its former contractor was later found for sale online. Chegg’s failure to protect its employees’ medical and financial data was particularly problematic since this information is valuable on the open market and is used to commit identity theft and fraud, according to the complaint.

As part of the proposed order, Chegg will be required to take several steps to address the problems outlined in the FTC’s complaint including:

 

• Detail and Limit Data Collection:Chegg must document and follow a schedule that sets out what personal information the company collects, why it collects the information, and when it will delete the information.
• Provide Consumer Access to Data: Chegg must provide its customers access to data collected about them and allow them to request that the company delete that data.
• Implement Multifactor Authentication:Chegg must provide multifactor authentication or another authentication method to its customers and employees to help protect their accounts.
• Implement Security Program: Chegg must implement a comprehensive information security program that addresses the flaws in the company’s data security practices including encrypting consumer data and providing security training to its employees.

 

The action against Chegg is part of the FTC’s aggressive efforts to ensure education technology companies protect and secure personal data they collect and do not collect more information than is necessary. In May 2022, the Commission issued a policy statement warning education technologies against illegally collecting personal information from children under 13 in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which also requires companies to secure the data they collect. The Commission also is taking steps to bolster security market-wide, including initiating  an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on commercial surveillance and lax data security practices. And the FTC continues to hold companies accountable for failing to secure consumer data. Earlier this month, the FTC announced an order with the online alcohol delivery marketplace Drizly and its CEO for its lax data security practices.

The Commission voted 4-0 to issue the proposed administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement with Chegg.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

The Federal Trade Commission and State of California are taking action against home improvement financing provider Ygrene Energy Fund Inc. for deceiving consumers about the potential financial impact of its financing, and for unfairly recording liens on consumers’ homes without their consent. The FTC and California allege that Ygrene and its contractors falsely told consumers that the financing wouldn’t interfere with the sale or refinancing of their homes, in many instances relying on high-pressure sales tactics or outright forgery to sign consumers up.

“Ygrene and its sales force deceived consumers about home improvement financing and then stuck consumers with liens that made it difficult to sell their homes,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Our proposed order would require Ygrene to clean up its business practices, monitor its sales force, and help defrauded consumers remove their liens.”

“Ygrene Energy Fund took advantage of hardworking California families, jeopardizing their most valuable asset in the process,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today’s settlement holds Ygrene accountable for their misconduct and establishes guardrails to protect property owners from future deception. PACE financing was meant to help families make important home improvements, but the dishonesty of companies like Ygrene has left some homeowners at risk of losing their homes. Before signing a PACE contract, I urge all Californians to familiarize themselves with this program and take the time to understand what it is and, most importantly, what it isn’t.”

A proposed court order would require Ygrene to stop its deceptive practices and meaningfully oversee the contractors who have served as its salesforce. As part of the settlement, Ygrene will be required to dedicate $3 million to provide relief to certain consumers whose homes are subject to the company’s liens.

California-based Ygrene has provided PACE financing, a form of secured home-improvement financing, for clean-energy home improvements in parts of California, Missouri, and Florida. Since 2015, Ygrene has trained home-improvement contractors to market the company’s PACE financing to homeowners as a way to pay for energy upgrades (e.g., solar panels or updated insulation) to consumers’ homes. These sales often happen door-to-door, with contractors approaching consumers in their homes, selling both the energy upgrade and the supposed benefits of Ygrene’s PACE financing.

PACE financing is a relatively new form of financing that relies on the property-tax system to collect payments from consumers. When a consumer uses PACE financing to pay for a clean energy project, a first-priority lien is placed against the consumer’s home, and the payments on the financing are collected through the homeowner’s property-tax bill. Failing to pay could subject a consumer to foreclosure on the property itself.

The FTC and California allege that Ygrene recruited and authorized home-improvement contractors, whom Ygrene did not adequately train or oversee, to sell its financing, leading to many consumers being deceived during the sales process and being unfairly subjected to liens on their homes without their express, informed consent. Specifically, according to the FTC and California, Ygrene and its contractors harmed consumers by:

• Deceiving consumers about PACE’s impact on home sales: The complaint alleges that Ygrene or its contractors provided false or misleading information that the lien placed on their home as a result of PACE financing could simply be transferred with a property when it was sold. In fact, many mortgage lenders will not provide financing to buy a property unless the PACE lien is paid off in full.
• Deceiving consumers about PACE’s impact on refinancing: In many cases, the complaint alleges, Ygrene or its contractors told consumers that the PACE lien would not interfere with their ability to refinance their homes. As with home sales, many lenders will not approve new financing until the PACE lien has been removed.
• Trapping consumers with PACE liens without clear consent: In many cases, Ygrene relies on an electronic signing system for its financing agreements with consumers. In some of these cases, the complaint alleges, Ygrene’s contractor sales practices have prevented consumers from meaningfully reviewing or consenting to key disclosures concerning the PACE lien. Contractors have rushed consumers through the electronic signing of the financing agreement, which appears in small print and is often presented to the consumer on a mobile phone or handheld tablet device – in many cases owned by the contractor – with a small screen that adds difficulty to navigating and understanding the agreement. In other cases, the contractor has forged the consumer’s signature by e-signing the contract without the consumer’s authorization. The complaint notes that even in some instances after Ygrene has received an electronic signature and has called the consumer to explain the terms of the agreement, the company has failed to ensure that it was speaking to the consumer or that the consumer has given clear consent to the lien.

Enforcement Action

Ygrene has agreed to a proposed court order with the FTC and California that would require it to stop violating the FTC Act and the California Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws. The court order would require Ygrene to:

• Stop deceiving consumers: The order would require Ygrene to stop deceiving consumers about the transferability of the PACE financing obligation to the new owner in the event of a sale, the impact of PACE financing on the sale or refinancing of a home, or whether a home will be used as collateral in PACE financing.
• Closely monitor contractors: Ygrene would be required to create a program to closely monitor the actions of contractors who sell their financing products, to ensure they do not deceive consumers and do not forge consumers’ signatures on finance agreements. The order would also require Ygrene to investigate and act on consumer complaints about its contractors.
• Ensure that it has properly obtained consumer consent: The order would require Ygrene to obtain the consumer’s express, informed consent before causing the consumer’s property to be used as collateral to secure PACE financing.
• Conduct a lien-release process or provide refunds to consumers: The order would require Ygrene to send a survey to consumers with outstanding liens to determine whether the consumer personally signed the financing documents or authorized them to be signed by someone else. Survey responses and Ygrene documentation may be reviewed by a settlement administrator. The order would require Ygrene to establish a $3 million fund that could be used to release the liens placed on consumers’ homes without their consent. If the cost of releasing the liens is less than $3 million, the order would require Ygrene to provide the remaining funds to the FTC to be used to redress consumers harmed by practices alleged in the complaint.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and final order/injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has finalized a consent order against Electrowarmth Products, LLC and its owner, Daniel W. Grindle, barring them from deceptively claiming the heated fabric mattress pads they sell for truck bunks are made in the USA.

The final order prohibits Grindle and Electrowarmth from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is not misleading and they have a reasonable basis that substantiates their claim. It also requires the respondents to make certain disclosures about the country of origin of any product subject to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and to provide compliance reports. The order also imposes a suspended $815,809 monetary judgment.

Based in Ohio, Grindle and Electrowarmth sell mattress pads of varying sizes, with wires and thermostats that provide heat. According to the FTC’s complaint, before 2019, Electrowarmth used U.S.-made textiles for mattress pads intended for use in truck bunks. But in a cost-cutting move, they decided to move production to China and stop using U.S.-made textiles, while continuing to market their heated trunk bunk mattress pads as “Made in USA,” “Made in the USA since 1939,” and “made-in-America products.”

The Commission vote approving final order and letters to the commenters of record was 4-0.

After a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final orders against motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, grill maker Weber-Stephen Products, and the manufacturer of Westinghouse outdoor power equipment, MWE Investments, for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products.

In cases announced in June, the FTC alleged that Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments included terms in their warranties that claimed that the warranty would be void if customers used independent repairers or third-party parts, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the FTC Act. In addition, Harley-Davidson allegedly failed to properly disclose all warranty terms in a single document, and instead directed consumers to visit a local dealership to fully understand the warranty. In July, the FTC announced a similar case alleging that Weber’s warranty illegally claimed that the use of aftermarket parts would void the company’s warranty on gas and electric grills.

The orders require the companies to take multiple steps to correct their unlawful behavior:

• Prohibit further violations: The companies will be prohibited from further violations of the Warranty Act, and in Harley-Davidson’s case, the Disclosure Rule. They will also be prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party services or parts, or that they should only use branded parts or authorized service providers. If the companies violate these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.
• Recognize consumers’ right to repair: Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments will be required to add specific language to their warranties similar to the following: “Taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not void this warranty” and/or “using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”  Weber must add to its warranty a statement that “Using third-party parts will not violate this warranty.”
• Come clean with consumers: The companies must send and post notices informing customers that their warranties will remain in effect even if they buy aftermarket parts and/or patronize independent repairers.
• Alert dealers to compete fairly: Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments are being required to direct authorized dealers to remove deceptive display materials, train and monitor employees, and not promote branded parts and dealers over third parties.

The Commission votes to approve the final orders against Weber-Stephen Products and MWE Investments were 5-0. The Commission vote to approve the final order against Harley-Davidson and issue letters to commenters was 4-0.