Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 505/2J (2026)
No seller may include or cause to be included in any advertisement, price tag, display or other device used to describe the goods to be sold or to induce the purchase of those goods a statement that the goods may be purchased by weekly, monthly or other periodic payments unless that statement clearly sets forth the cash sale price of the goods in immediate conjunction with the amount of such periodic payment payable; the downpayment, if any; the number, amount and due dates or period of payments scheduled to repay the indebtedness if the credit is extended; and the rate of charge for credit expressed as an annual percentage rate
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/2J)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 262J)
Sec. 2J.
No seller may include or cause to be included in any
advertisement, price tag, display or other device used to describe the
goods to be sold or to induce the purchase of those goods a statement that
the goods may be purchased by weekly, monthly or other periodic payments
unless that statement clearly sets forth the cash sale price of the goods
in immediate conjunction with the amount of such periodic payment payable;
the downpayment, if any; the number, amount and due dates or period of
payments scheduled to repay the indebtedness if the credit is extended; and
the rate of charge for credit expressed as an annual percentage rate.
A seller who complies with the federal Truth In Lending Act, amendments
thereto, and any regulation issued or which may be issued thereunder, shall
be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of this Section.
A seller who violates this Section is guilty of an unlawful practice
within the meaning of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 84-894.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Alma Lasers, Inc. v. Yigazu Isthetics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 191894-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Alma Lasers, Inc. v. Yigazu Isthetics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 191894-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “The motion to dismiss the amended complaint, in addition to alleging a failed meeting of the minds for an enforceable contract, argued that plaintiff’s “bait and switch” violated section 2J of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (the Act) (815 ILCS 505/2J (West 2018))…”
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.
|