Go read the article. No actual allegations have been made.

The FTC has the power to investigate and determine if abuse is occurring. If they determine that to be the case, they have the authority to rectify the situation through various means. They do not need congress' cooperation to do this.

That was my only point, but it seems your entire objection is based on a misunderstanding of what's actually going on, so... fuck me I guess.
=Smidge=

Who said anything about overriding state laws? Even the comment from the FTC acknowledges general support for the laws. What's contentious is corporation's abuse of the laws.

Jesus F. Christ, this was a long walk to discover you didn't even read the summary.
=Smidge=

15 U.S. Code 45 states "The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations [...] from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. "

15 U.S. Code 46 gives the FTC further authority to perform investigations and classify businesses for the purpose to regulating them. They also have the authority to compel corporations to file reports for various reasons.

15 U.S. Code 57a gives the FTC authority to deal with unfair business practices by creating rules.

15 U.S. Code 57b gives the FTC legal teeth if the rules they prescribe are not followed.

So the FTC has the power to investigate "dealership laws," determine if corporations are exploiting these laws in an unfair way, and act if they see fit. The FTC and the Interstate Commerce Clause meet at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, which the FTC was essentially created to enforce and was given broad judicial, legislative, and executive powers to do so without requiring congressional action.

Now, that's not to say that Congress CAN'T step in - only that the FTC does not need their permission. Note that rules and regulations that the FTC is empowered to create and enforce are not the same as laws - Congress is still required to make new laws.
=Smidge=

The law that allows the FTC to take action on the matter is the fact that they exist.

Congress does not have to address it, because Congress created the FTC to address things like this a century ago. Congress doesn't need to delegate anything because this is explicitly within the FTC's jurisdiction already. It also doesn't matter that the founding law doesn't mention specific products and services - the role of the FTC is to protect consumers.

Keep in mind that there has been nothing official from the FTC yet, but they have the power to step in and try (perhaps not successfully) to regulate, alter or annul even state-level laws that they feel are to the detriment of consumers. That is precisely the reason they exist.

And since you mentioned them, the FTC has also bumped heads with the AMA back in the 1970s for somewhat similar reasons. The AMA lost.
=Smidge=

So they rig the laws in their favor, such that they aren't doing anything that's illegal by the letter of the law, and that's 100% fine? That's the only criteria? As long as they get the laws changed they can do whatever they want and you'd be totally cool with it because it's by-definition legal? No such thing as an unjust law, or even a law which is itself illegal?

What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?

And yes, the MANUFACTURERS are indeed part of it, not just the dealers.
=Smidge=

So you don't think, that corporations are practicing "unfair trade practices" just because the actions of corporations are made by proxy through state government via lobbying? It's somehow not a problem if state laws allow it?

What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?
=Smidge=

It's in the state's interest because the auto dealers and manufacturers lobby to make it the state's interest. That's pretty much how government works...

Auto dealers don't want competition, especially from a seller who doesn't have the overhead of maintaining a series of brick-and-mortar shops. Manufacturers don't want competition from another manufacturer. Together they put pressure on the state governments to mold laws in such a way as to keep the competition out.
=Smidge=

Dealers don't sell cars on behalf of the manufacturer, they buy the cars from the manufacturer and re-sell them.

Part of the abuses was manufacturers forcing dealers to buy cars. This enabled the manufacturers to continue making profits and claim sales numbers even though the cars never left the dealer's lots.

See also the "Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act" - 1956.
=Smidge=

The creation of the FTC is the law Congress passed in order to deal with these issues.

So yes, the FTC DOES in fact have the authority, because Congress gave it to them back in 1914.
=Smidge=

I had the same question and started clicking around. I came up with this:

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsreg...

Just browsing through the dense wall of legalese, it seems largely related to being clear (and documented) in purpose and intent, having structured hierarchy of responsibility, good record keeping practices, providing appropriate resources (access to staff, libraries/labs, equipment etc), having clearly defined financial policies in place, making sure your faculty is competent and up to date on their subject matter, have clearly defined admission standards, etc.

I don't see anything particularly onerous in these requirements.
=Smidge=

I dunno, but compliance is not necessarily a bad thing.

I want all of my electrical and electronic devices to comply with appropriate standards and regulations so they all work together and are safe to use.

I want vehicles and buildings to comply with the myriad of safety regulations.

I want my food and food preparation/handling facilities to comply with best practices.

I don't know what the BPPE requires with respect to compliance (article does not say in what way these places are not in compliance), but maybe I want that too.
=Smidge=