ILCS » Chapter 205 · Act 670
Illinois Compiled Statutes

205 ILCS 670/18 (2026)

Advertising

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(205 ILCS 670/18) (from Ch. 17, par. 5424)
    Sec. 18. Advertising. Advertising for loans transacted under this Act may not be false, misleading or deceptive. That advertising, if it states a rate or amount of charge for a loan, must state the rate as an annual percentage rate. No licensee may advertise in any manner so as to indicate or imply that his interest rates or charges for loans are in any way "recommended", "approved", "set" or "established" by the State government or by this Act.
    If any advertisement to which this Section applies states the amount of any installment payment, the dollar amount of any finance charge, or the number of installments or the period of repayment, then the advertisement shall state all of the following items:
    (1) The amount of the loan.
    (2) The number, amount, and due dates or period of payments scheduled to repay the indebtedness if the credit is extended.
    (3) The rate of the finance charge expressed as an annual percentage rate.
(Source: P.A. 90-437, eff. 1-1-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2002–2002 · leading case: Chandler v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 768 N.E.2d 60 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chandler v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 768 N.E.2d 60 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “(West 1998)) and the Illinois Consumer Installment Loan Act (Consumer Loan Act) (205 ILCS 670/18 (West 1998)). AGFI filed a motion to dismiss, contending: (1) the Chandlers failed to state a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act; (2) the Chandlers failed to state a cause…”
Chandler v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “(West 1998), and the Illinois Consumer Installment Loan Act (Consumer Loan Act), 205 ILCS 670/18 (West 1998). AGFI filed a motion to dismiss, contending: (1) the Chandlers failed to state a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act; (2) the Chandlers failed to state a cause…”
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.