(a) Discrimination. A creditor shall not discriminate against an applicant on a prohibited basis regarding any aspect of a credit transaction.
(b) Discouragement. A creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.
(c) Written applications. A creditor shall take written applications for the dwelling-related types of credit covered by § 202.13(a).
(d) Form of disclosures—(1) General rule. A creditor that provides in writing any disclosures or information required by this regulation must provide the disclosures in a clear and conspicuous manner and, except for the disclosures required by §§ 202.5 and 202.13, in a form the applicant may retain.
(2) Disclosures in electronic form. The disclosures required by this part that are required to be given in writing may be provided to the applicant in electronic form, subject to compliance with the consumer consent and other applicable provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.). Where the disclosures under §§ 202.5(b)(1), 202.5(b)(2), 202.5(d)(1), 202.5(d)(2), 202.13, and 202.14(a)(2)(i) accompany an application accessed by the applicant in electronic form, these disclosures may be provided to the applicant in electronic form on or with the application form, without regard to the consumer consent or other provisions of the E-Sign Act.
(e) Foreign-language disclosures. Disclosures may be made in languages other than English, provided they are available in English upon request.
[Reg. B, 68 FR 13161, Mar. 18, 2003, as amended at 72 FR 63451, Nov. 9, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Tonja Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc., 362 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “While it is true that the victim of discrimination may still be able to seek redress under 12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (a) (“[a] creditor shall not discriminate against an applicant on a prohibited basis regarding any aspect of a credit transaction”), if an applicant never receives…”
Tina Alexander v. Ameripro Funding, Incorpo, 848 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2017).
“” 12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (b). But § 202.4(b) does not alter the definition of “applicant,” and only an “aggrieved applicant” has standing under the ECOA to bring a private cause of action.”
CFPB v. Townstone Fin., Inc., 107 F.4th 768 (7th Cir. 2024).
“12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (b). 14 B. We now turn to an examination of the problem before us.”
Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 991 F. Supp. 1410 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
“’s Reply at 3 (citing 12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (1), Commentary).) Plaintiff argues that “in order to finance with Green Tree, it is.”
Padin v. Oyster Point Dodge, 397 F. Supp. 2d 712 (E.D. Va. 2005).
“at 978-79 (citing 12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (a) & (b)). However, as the court also noted, the language has since been amended to include as “creditor” one who “regularly participates in a credit decision, including setting the terms of the credit” by “(a) [insisting] on more money down;…”
Shuman v. Stand. Oil Co. of California, 453 F. Supp. 1150 (N.D. Cal. 1978).
“Application form 1-75, which was used from January 1975 through March 23, 1977, violated the terms of 12 C.F.R. §§ 202.4 (c) and 202.5(b) (1977), regulations which became effective on June 30, 1976, by requesting information concerning spouses, in non-community property states…”
Swartz v. City Mortg., Inc., 911 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Haw. 2012).
“B, 12 C.F.R. § 202.4 (c)).] The Moving Defendants assert that they did obtain a written loan application from Plaintiffs through their mortgage broker, First National.”
Nevarez v. O'Connor Chevrolet, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
“12 C.F.R. §§ 202.4 (a) and (b). The second class of creditors (described herein as “Participating Creditors”), on the other hand, accept applications, perform underwriting and actually participate in setting the terms of credit or making the credit decision.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 202.4(c)(4) — 1 case
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.