Section 1 begins by discussing credit card usage and the levels of debt of American consumers. Section 2 outlines the history of TILA, which was promulgated by Congress in 1968, as well as the enforcement power bestowed by Congress on the Federal Reserve Board to implement TILA. This exploration also includes descriptions of Regulation Z and the Schumer Box requirements that state exactly what information needs to be clearly and conspicuously displayed in credit card application materials as well as how the information is to be displayed for consumers to review. Section 3 discusses the recent Ninth Circuit case Rubio v. Capital One where the court decided the clarity of disclosure as a question of law. The dissent from Rubio is also analyzed because the position taken is in accord with the Third Circuit opinion of Roberts v. Fleet Bank, where the clarity of disclosure was left as a question of fact for the jury. Section 4 outlines the Roberts case, and the court’s decision to analyze clarity of disclosure as a question of fact, in more detail. The fifth and final Section recommends leaving clarity of disclosure as a question of fact to be decided by a fact-finder.
Recommended CitationBrandon Mohr, Who Decides Whether Clarity is Clear?: An Analysis of TILA’s Clarity of Disclosure Requirement in Actions by Consumers Against Creditor Card Companies, 32 Pace L. Rev. 188 (2012)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss1/5