## Facts

- Terry Buick, Inc. operated a retail automobile dealership in New York.
- The dealership displayed large signs outside its business and on showroom windows stating, in substance, that it sold cars with “no down payment” and financing with monthly payments of “only $99.”
- The actual credit terms offered to consumers were more expensive than the headline claims suggested.
- More complete terms appeared only on small stickers placed on the windows of individual cars, rather than being stated clearly in the large signs that featured the attractive payment claims.
- The State of New York, through the Attorney General, sued Terry Buick seeking to stop these advertising practices, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act’s credit-advertising provisions and Regulation Z, as well as New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 350 and 350-a.
- The State moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Terry Buick from continuing the challenged advertisements while the case proceeded.

## Issues

1. Did Terry Buick’s advertising violate the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1664(d)) and Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 226.24) by using attractive payment/down-payment claims without clearly and conspicuously stating the additional required credit terms in the advertisement?
2. Did the same advertising violate New York GBL §§ 350 and 350-a as false or misleading advertising?
3. In an enforcement action by the Attorney General seeking to stop unlawful advertising, may the court grant a preliminary injunction based on the demonstrated statutory violations without requiring the State to prove irreparable injury in the traditional private-litigation sense?

## Decision

- The court found that the State demonstrated Terry Buick’s violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act’s advertising requirements and Regulation Z.
- The court also found that the State demonstrated violations of New York GBL §§ 350 and 350-a because the advertisements were misleading to consumers when viewed as a whole.
- The court rejected the dealer’s contention that injunctive relief was unavailable because the State did not show irreparable damage in the ordinary way.
- The court granted the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction restraining Terry Buick from continuing the unlawful credit-advertising practices.

## Legal Principles

- Under TILA and Regulation Z, when a credit advertisement states certain “triggering” terms (such as a specific periodic payment or a down-payment claim), the advertiser must also state the additional required terms, and the disclosures must be clear and conspicuous in the advertisement.
- Placing fuller credit information only on small, less noticeable materials (such as small window stickers on cars) does not cure a large, prominent payment claim that omits or obscures required terms.
- Under New York GBL §§ 350 and 350-a, advertising is unlawful if it is deceptive or misleading in a material way, judged by the overall impression likely to be made on consumers, including what is left out.
- In an Attorney General enforcement action seeking to stop false advertising under GBL § 350-d and related provisions, once statutory violations are shown, the court may issue injunctive relief to prevent continuation of the unlawful conduct without requiring the same individualized irreparable-harm showing expected of a private plaintiff.

## Conclusion

State v. Terry Buick, Inc. held that a car dealer’s prominent “no down payment” and “$99 per month” credit advertising violated both TILA/Regulation Z and New York’s false-advertising statutes when the full financing terms were not clearly and conspicuously disclosed in the advertisement itself, and the court granted the Attorney General a preliminary injunction without requiring a traditional irreparable-injury showing beyond the demonstrated statutory violations.


State v. Terry Buick, Inc., 520 N.Y.S.2d 497, 137 Misc. 2d 290 (1987)