C.F.R. » Title 16 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—GUIDES AND TRADE PRACTICE RULES › PART 254—GUIDES FOR PRIVATE VOCATIONAL AND DISTANCE EDUCATION SCHOOLS

16 C.F.R. § 254.7

Deceptive sales practices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to use advertisements or promotional materials that misrepresent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that employment is being offered or that a talent hunt or contest is being conducted. For example, captions such as, “Men/women wanted to train for * * * ,” “Help Wanted,” “Employment,” “Business Opportunities,” and words or terms of similar import, may falsely convey that employment is being offered and therefore should be avoided.

(b) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to fail to disclose to a prospective student, prior to enrollment, the total cost of the program of instruction and the school's refund policy if the student does not complete the program of instruction.

(c) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to fail to disclose to a prospective student, prior to enrollment, all requirements for successfully completing the course or program of instruction and the circumstances that would constitute grounds for terminating the student's enrollment prior to completion of the program of instruction.

[78 FR 68991, Nov. 18, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Manley v. Wichita Bus. Coll., 701 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manley v. Wichita Bus. Coll., 701 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1985). “” 16 C.F.R. § 254.7 (b) (1985). *434 Therefore, appellee argues there is substantial factual and legal evidence that the reference to the college’s recruiter and salesman as a “career counselor” was per se a deceptive practice.”
Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc. (D. Mass. 2019). “16 C.F.R. § 254.7 (requiring private vocational schools to disclose to prospective students the cost of the program’s tuition); Manley v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.