20 U.S.C. § 1098g
Exemption from State disclosure requirements
Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Nicole Nelson v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan S, 928 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2019).
Nicole Nelson v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan S, 928 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2019). “" 20 U.S.C. § 1098g. The district court reasoned that Nelson's claims are expressly preempted because they all allege in substance only that Great Lakes failed to disclose certain information.”
Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010). “” The text of the statute reads: “Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act ... shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.”
Daniel v. Navient Solutions, LLC, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2018). “In support of their express preemption argument, Defendant argues that 20 U.S.C. § 1098g has been interpreted as requiring dismissal of state law claims against student loan servicers for alleged misrepresentation or omissions of fact.”
Amanda Lawson-Ross v. Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp., 955 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2020). “20 U.S.C. § 1098g. In this appeal, we must decide whether the HEA preempts state law claims alleging that student loan servicers made affirmative misrepresentations to borrowers regarding their eligibility for a federal program that forgives student loan balances.”
Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp., 354 F. Supp. 3d 529 (M.D. Penn. 2018). “Navient contends that these claims are essentially that Navient made improper disclosures, and that the HEA expressly bars state law disclosure claims, citing 20 U.S.C. § 1098g. (Doc. 24 at 15-19). Navient also argues that the claims are conflict preempted by the HEA because the…”
Student Loan Servicing All. v. Dist. of Columbia, 351 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 20 U.S.C. § 1098g. FDLP loans are authorized pursuant to 20 U.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp, 967 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2020). “It argues that Counts II and IV of the Commonwealth’s Complaint fall squarely within § 1098g’s prohibition because they target the sufficiency of the disclosures Navient allegedly made to borrowers and expressly fault it for failing to make “disclosures” or provide “notice” that…”
Pharm. Care Mgmt. v. Nizar Wehbi, 18 F.4th 956 (8th Cir. 2021). “§ 423.514 (d) do not displace section 16.”
Olsen v. Nelnet, Inc., 392 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (D. Neb. 2019). “The Court finds that the plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to identify the time, place, content and source of the misrepresentations, and the consequences of the misrepresentations to the plaintiffs.”
Gentleman v. Massachusetts Higher Educ. Assistance Corp., 272 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “See 20 U.S.C. § 1098g (“Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.”
Reavis v. PA Higher Edu. Asst., 2020 MT 181 (Mont. 2020). “¶1 James Reavis appeals from the order of First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, dismissing his complaint against his student loan servicer Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) as expressly preempted by the Higher Education Act (HEA), 20 U.S.C.…”
Nicole Nelson v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan S (7th Cir. 2019). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1098g. The district court reasoned that Nel‐ son’s claims are expressly preempted because they all allege in substance only that Great Lakes failed to disclose certain information.”
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.