12 C.F.R. § 226.28

Effect on State laws

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

(a) Inconsistent disclosure requirements. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, State law requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements contained in chapter 1 (General Provisions), chapter 2 (Credit Transactions), or chapter 3 (Credit Advertising) of the act and the implementing provisions of this regulation are preempted to the extent of the inconsistency. A State law is inconsistent if it requires a creditor to make disclosures or take actions that contradict the requirements of the Federal law. A State law is contradictory if it requires the use of the same term to represent a different amount or a different meaning than the Federal law, or if it requires the use of a term different from that required in the Federal law to describe the same item. A creditor, State, or other interested party may request the Board to determine whether a State law requirement is inconsistent. After the Board determines that a State law is inconsistent, a creditor may not make disclosures using the inconsistent term or form.

(2)(i) State law requirements are inconsistent with the requirements contained in sections 161 (Correction of billing errors) or 162 (Regulation of credit reports) of the Act and the implementing provisions of this regulation and are preempted if they provide rights, responsibilities, or procedures for consumers or creditors that are different from those required by the Federal law. However, a State law that allows a consumer to inquire about an open-end credit account and imposes on the creditor an obligation to respond to such inquiry after the time allowed in the Federal law for the consumer to submit written notice of a billing error shall not be preempted in any situation where the time period for making written notice under this regulation has expired. If a creditor gives written notice of a consumer's rights under such State law, the notice shall state that reliance on the longer time period available under State law may result in the loss of important rights that could be preserved by acting more promptly under Federal law; it shall also explain that the State law provisions apply only after expiration of the time period for submitting a proper written notice of a billing error under the Federal law. If the State disclosures are made on the same side of a page as the required Federal disclosures, the State disclosures shall appear under a demarcation line below the Federal disclosures, and the Federal disclosures shall be identified by a heading indicating that they are made in compliance with Federal law.

(ii) State law requirements are inconsistent with the requirements contained in chapter 4 (Credit billing) of the Act (other than section 161 or 162) and the implementing provisions of this regulation and are preempted if the creditor cannot comply with State law without violating Federal law.

(iii) A State may request the Board to determine whether its law is inconsistent with chapter 4 of the Act and its implementing provisions.

(b) Equivalent disclosure requirements. If the Board determines that a disclosure required by state law (other than a requirement relating to the finance charge, annual percentage rate, or the disclosures required under § 226.32) is substantially the same in meaning as a disclosure required under the act or this regulation, creditors in that state may make the state disclosure in lieu of the federal disclosure. A creditor, State, or other interested party may request the Board to determine whether a State disclosure is substantially the same in meaning as a Federal disclosure.

(c) Request for determination. The procedures under which a request for a determination may be made under this section are set forth in appendix A.

(d) Special rule for credit and charge cards. State law requirements relating to the disclosure of credit information in any credit or charge card application or solicitation that is subject to the requirements of section 127(c) of chapter 2 of the act (§ 226.5a of the regulation) or in any renewal notice for a credit or charge card that is subject to the requirements of section 127(d) of chapter 2 of the act (§ 226.9(e) of the regulation) are preempted. State laws relating to the enforcement of section 127 (c) and (d) of the act are not preempted.

[Reg. Z, 46 FR 20892, Apr. 7, 1981, as amended at 54 FR 13867, Apr. 6, 1989; 54 FR 32954, Aug. 11, 1989; 60 FR 15471, Mar. 24, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 894 N.E.2d 1 (NY 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 894 N.E.2d 1 (NY 2008). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, 12 CFR 226.28 (d) states as follows: “(d) Special rule for credit and charge cards.”

Azar v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 68 P.3d 909 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Effect on State laws, 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a) (2002). One such “inconsistency” arises if the state law “requires the use of the same term to represent a different amount or a different meaning than the Federal law, or if it requires the use of a term different from that required…”

Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 1610 (a)(1) (1994); 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a)(1) (1995). As previously stated, the language of section 1641(a) of TILA sets forth a single, clear standard, which provides that in order for an assignee of a loan to be held liable for a disclosure violation, the violation must be…”

Black v. Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” ( 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a)(1) (2001).) Respondents argue that a state law like Business and Professions Code section 17200 would impose subjective standards of “unfairness,” thus contradicting the requirements of federal law.”

Permobil, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 825 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “12 C.F.R. § 226.28 . As at least one court has noted, “it is clear from the narrow wording of these provisions that preemption was intended to extend only to specific state disclosure requirements, in the interest of preserving uniform methods of disclosure.”

Heastie v. Cmty. Bank of Greater Peoria, 690 F. Supp. 716 (N.D. Ill. 1988). · cites it 2× “12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a). There are, in addition, procedures which an interested party may follow in order to have state disclosure requirements declared “substantially the same in meaning” as the TILA requirements, thereby avoiding preemption.”

Jordan v. Paul Fin., LLC, 745 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a)(1). However, TILA’s preemption provision preserves state laws “relating to the disclosure of information in connection with credit transactions” which are not inconsistent with TILA.”

In Re Kamps, 217 B.R. 836 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a) (1997); see also 15 U.”

Monaco v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortg. Corp., 554 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “” 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a)(1). Here, Plaintiffs’ second cause of action under the UCL is based solely on Defendants’ alleged TILA violations.”

Williams v. Empire Funding Corp., 109 F. Supp. 2d 352 (E.D. Pa. 2000). · cites it 3× “” 12 C.F.R. § 226.28 (a)(1999). A state law requirement is “contradictory if it requires the use of the same term to represent a different amount or, a different meaning than the federal law, or if it requires the use of a term different from that required in the federal law to…”

People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “As such, they are not preempted (see 12 CFR part 226, Supp 1,¶ 28 [d] [1]; 12 CFR 226.28 [d]; Therrien v Resource Fin.”

Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp., 354 F. Supp. 3d 529 (M.D. Penn. 2018). “A State law is contradictory if it requires the use of the same term to represent a different amount or a different meaning than the Federal law, or if it requires the use of a term different from that required in the Federal law to describe the same item.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— 12 C.F.R. § 226.28(d)(1) — 1 case

Utah First Fed. Credit Union v. Dudley, 2012 UT App 164 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).

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.