12 C.F.R. § 1016.17

Relation to state laws

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

(a) In general. This part shall not be construed as superseding, altering, or affecting any statute, regulation, order, or interpretation in effect in any state, except to the extent that such state statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is inconsistent with the provisions of this part, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.

(b) Greater protection under state law. For purposes of this section, a state statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is not inconsistent with the provisions of this part if the protection such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided under this part, as determined by the Bureau, on its own motion or upon the petition of any interested party, after consultation with the agency or authority with jurisdiction under section 505(a) of the GLB Act (15 U.S.C. 6805(a)) over either the person that initiated the complaint or that is the subject of the complaint.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Davies v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union (Me. Super. Ct 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davies v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “2 Because the federal regulation states that it will not supersede state laws which offer greater protections, 12 C.F.R. § 1016.17 , and Maine’s protections are greater than under the federal law, 9-B M.”

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.