“Bumper to Bumper” Coverage That Was Never Affiliated With Any Automaker

A call comes in claiming to represent the maker of the car sitting in the recipient's driveway, warning that the vehicle's factory warranty is about to expire and offering a replacement plan with “bumper to bumper” protection. According to the Federal Trade Commission, that call had no connection to any automaker at all — it was part of a telemarketing operation called American Vehicle Protection that reached hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide with false claims about coverage the company had no ability to actually provide.DOCUMENTED

The FTC first sued Kole Consulting Group and its owner, Daniel Kole, along with other defendants operating the American Vehicle Protection scheme, in February 2022. A July 2023 settlement permanently banned Kole from outbound telemarketing and from any involvement in extended automobile warranty sales, while imposing a $6.5 million monetary judgment.DOCUMENTED

What the complaint alleges

According to the FTC, American Vehicle Protection made illegal, unsolicited telemarketing calls to hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide, falsely claiming an affiliation with the consumer's own car manufacturer or dealer and falsely representing that the vehicle service contracts being sold offered comprehensive “bumper to bumper” protection.DOCUMENTED Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the settlement that “Kole and AVP blasted consumers with illegal calls and made bogus claims about bumper-to-bumper warranties,” describing the order as part of “the Commission's aggressive crackdown on telemarketing fraud.”DOCUMENTED

Why the manufacturer-affiliation claim mattered so much

Falsely claiming an affiliation with a consumer's own car manufacturer or dealer is a particularly effective deception because it exploits an existing relationship of trust the consumer already has, rather than asking them to extend that trust to an entirely unfamiliar company.REVIEWED A consumer who believes they are hearing from their own car's manufacturer about an expiring warranty has little reason to apply the same skepticism they might bring to an obviously unrelated cold call, making the false affiliation claim itself one of the most consequential representations in the entire scheme, independent of whatever the underlying vehicle service contract actually covered.

Why “bumper to bumper” language draws scrutiny

Vehicle service contracts, commonly marketed as extended warranties, vary enormously in what they actually cover, and “bumper to bumper” is a specific, comprehensive-sounding phrase that implies near-total coverage of a vehicle's systems and components.REVIEWED The FTC's complaint alleged that representation did not match the actual scope of coverage American Vehicle Protection's contracts provided, a pattern the agency has identified repeatedly across vehicle service contract cases: broad, comprehensive-sounding marketing language paired with contracts that, once a consumer actually files a claim, turn out to carry considerably narrower coverage than advertised.

Terms of the settlement

Under the settlement, Daniel Kole and Kole Consulting Group are permanently banned from any outbound telemarketing business and from any involvement with extended automobile warranty sales specifically.DOCUMENTED The order includes a monetary judgment of $6.5 million, partially suspended based on Kole's inability to pay the full amount; he was required to surrender $500,000, with the full judgment becoming immediately payable if he is later found to have misrepresented his financial condition to the agency.DOCUMENTED The Commission's vote approving the stipulated final orders was 3-0, and the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.DOCUMENTED

What the eventual refunds represented

The FTC's October 2024 distribution of more than $449,000 to 18,255 consumers reflects a modest average payment per person once the settlement's suspended judgment and the scheme's broad reach across hundreds of thousands of calls are divided among the identifiable, verified victims.REVIEWED That gap between the scale of the underlying calling campaign and the total dollar amount ultimately recovered is common in telemarketing fraud cases, where a large share of people who received a deceptive call never actually purchased anything, and the pool of funds available for redress is limited to what regulators can trace and seize from the specific defendants.

The calls claimed an affiliation with the consumer's own car manufacturer — a relationship of trust the scheme borrowed rather than earned, according to the FTC's complaint.

Why the case matters

For consumers who receive a call about their vehicle's warranty, the American Vehicle Protection case is a reminder that manufacturers and dealers do not typically initiate unsolicited telemarketing calls about extended coverage, and that a caller claiming this kind of affiliation can be independently verified by hanging up and contacting the dealer or manufacturer directly through contact information found separately from the call itself — a simple step that would have exposed this scheme's false premise immediately.

Why a suspended judgment does not mean a light penalty

The structure of Kole's $6.5 million judgment, with most of it suspended pending his surrender of $500,000, reflects a standard FTC mechanism for cases against individual defendants who lack the assets to satisfy a full monetary judgment: the suspension is conditioned entirely on the accuracy of the defendant's financial disclosures, meaning any later discovery that Kole understated his assets would trigger the full $6.5 million judgment immediately. That structure gives the agency a durable enforcement tool even in cases where an individual defendant's current finances fall well short of the harm alleged.

What a lifetime telemarketing ban actually forecloses

Because the ban covers any outbound telemarketing business, not merely calls related to vehicle warranties, Kole is foreclosed from operating in a far broader swath of the marketing industry than a narrower, warranty-specific restriction would have allowed. That breadth reflects the FTC's general preference, in cases involving individuals with a demonstrated history of deceptive calling practices, for remedies that prevent the same underlying tactics from simply migrating to a different product category under new branding.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.