U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE › Part Part D— Credit Billing

15 U.S.C. § 1666f

Inducements to cardholders by sellers of cash discounts for payments by cash, check or similar means; finance charge for sales transactions involving cash discounts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Cash discounts

With respect to credit 11 So in original. Probably should be preceded by “a”. card which may be used for extensions of credit in sales transactions in which the seller is a person other than the card issuer, the card issuer may not, by contract or otherwise, prohibit any such seller from offering a discount to a cardholder to induce the cardholder to pay by cash, check, or similar means rather than use a credit card.

(b) Finance charge

With respect to any sales transaction, any discount from the regular price offered by the seller for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, checks, or other means not involving the use of an open-end credit plan or a credit card shall not constitute a finance charge as determined under section 1605 of this title if such discount is offered to all prospective buyers and its availability is disclosed clearly and conspicuously.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, § 167, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title III, § 306, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1515; amended Pub. L. 94–222, § 3(c)(1), Feb. 27, 1976, 90 Stat. 197; Pub. L. 97–25, title I, § 101, July 27, 1981, 95 Stat. 144.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1981—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–25 substituted “With respect to any sales transaction, any discount from the regular price offered by the seller for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, checks, or other means not involving the use of an open-end credit plan or a credit card shall not constitute a finance charge as determined under section 1605 of this title if such discount is offered to all prospective buyers and its availability is disclosed clearly and conspicuously” for “With respect to any sales transaction, any discount not in excess of 5 per centum offered by the seller for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use of a credit card shall not constitute a finance charge as determined under section 1605 of this title, if such discount is offered to all prospective buyers and its availability is disclosed to all prospective buyers clearly and conspicuously in accordance with regulations of the Board”.

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–222 temporarily designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2). See Termination Date of 1976 Amendment note below.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination Date of 1976 Amendment

Section 3(c)(2) of Pub. L. 94–222, as amended by Pub. L. 95–630, title XV, § 1501, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3713; Pub. L. 97–25, title II, § 201, July 27, 1981, 95 Stat. 44, provided that: “The amendments made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall cease to be effective on February 27, 1984.”

Nullification of Board Rules and Regulations Under Subsection (b) of This Section in Effect on July 26, 1981

Pub. L. 97–25, title I, § 103, July 27, 1981, 95 Stat. 144, provided that: “Any rule or regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to section 167(b) of the Truth in Lending Act [subsec. (b) of this section], as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act [July 27, 1981], is null and void.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: Italian Colors Restaurant v. Xavier Becerra, 878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Italian Colors Restaurant v. Xavier Becerra, 878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “1500 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). Two years later, Congress again amended TILA to prohibit retailers from “imposing] a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”
Lynn Rowell v. Leslie Pettijohn, 816 F.3d 73 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)) (“the card issuer may not, by contract, or otherwise, prohibit any .”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. 37 (2017). “§ 518 (West 2012) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)(2) (1982 ed.). Unlike the federal ban, the New York legislation included no definition of "surcharge.”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 975 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). Thereafter, the battleground moved from whether merchants could charge different prices for cash and credit to how merchants could communicate those different prices to consumers.”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 808 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2015). “1500 (1974) (codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)) (providing that issuers could not “prohibit .”
Malinee B. Virachack Ritnarone T. Virachack, & Rachelle Harvey v. Univ. Ford, Dba: Bob Baker Ford, 410 F.3d 579 (9th Cir. 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(b). The Virachacks’ financing is a closed-end credit plan.”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 32 N.Y.3d 382 (2018). · cites it 2× “27, 1976, Pub L 94-222, § 3 [c], 90 US Stat 197, codified at 15 USC § 1666f [a] [former (2)]). The 1976 version of TILA thus barred merchants from imposing "surcharges" on customers who use credit cards.”
Italian Colors Restaurant v. Harris, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). The language used in the 1974 TILA amendment focused solely on the use of discounts: “a card issuer may not, by contract, or otherwise, prohibit any such seller from offering a discount to a cardholder to induce the .”
Virachack v. Univeristy Ford, No. 03-55852 (9th Cir. May 19, 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(b). The Virachacks’ financing is a closed-end credit plan.”
15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a): 5 cases
Italian Colors Restaurant v. Xavier Becerra, 878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018). “1500 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). Two years later, Congress again amended TILA to prohibit retailers from “imposing] a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”
Lynn Rowell v. Leslie Pettijohn, 816 F.3d 73 (5th Cir. 2016). “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)) (“the card issuer may not, by contract, or otherwise, prohibit any .”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 975 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). Thereafter, the battleground moved from whether merchants could charge different prices for cash and credit to how merchants could communicate those different prices to consumers.”
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 808 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2015). “1500 (1974) (codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)) (providing that issuers could not “prohibit .”
Italian Colors Restaurant v. Harris, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “1500 , 1515 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). The language used in the 1974 TILA amendment focused solely on the use of discounts: “a card issuer may not, by contract, or otherwise, prohibit any such seller from offering a discount to a cardholder to induce the .”
15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)(2): 2 cases
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. 37 (2017). “§ 518 (West 2012) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)(2) (1982 ed.). Unlike the federal ban, the New York legislation included no definition of "surcharge.”
Italian Colors Restaurant v. Xavier Becerra, 878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018). “1500 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)). Two years later, Congress again amended TILA to prohibit retailers from “imposing] a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”
15 U.S.C. § 1666f(b): 2 cases
Malinee B. Virachack Ritnarone T. Virachack, & Rachelle Harvey v. Univ. Ford, Dba: Bob Baker Ford, 410 F.3d 579 (9th Cir. 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(b). The Virachacks’ financing is a closed-end credit plan.”
Virachack v. Univeristy Ford, No. 03-55852 (9th Cir. May 19, 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(b). The Virachacks’ financing is a closed-end credit plan.”
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.