Federal Truth In Lending Act Case Study

3781 Words16 Pages
The Truth-In Lending Act The Truth-In Lending Act The Federal Truth in Lending Act of 1968 (TILA) was designed to provide the consumer with information regarding the actual cost of credit. Before TILA, the stated interest rate of a loan was calculated in different ways to the benefit of the lender and against the borrower. The TILA made it obligatory for all lenders to state the annual percentage rate (APR) and to make it consistently calculated so that the consumer would be able to compare the interest rates and calculate the cost of borrowing themselves. The actual outcome of the law has been different. “The law's critics contend that a mismatch between the required disclosures and the information that the consumer needs to compare…show more content…
H&R Block This case is a federal class action suit against H&R Block. H&R Block offers refund anticipation loans (RALS) a RAL is a short term loan that is funded either the day the client does their federal tax return or the next day this loan is given out at a substantial interest rate for someone that is entitled to a refund on their federal tax return. Block also offers refund anticipation checks (RACS) as part of their tax services. The RAC is when you don’t have the money to pay for your tax services. H&R Block will charge a convenience fee to take the tax preparation fee out of the person’s tax refund. You don’t get your refund any sooner like you do with the RALS but you don’t have to pay for the fees that day. They are accused of targeting the working poor and minorities with these services as they promote a quicker way of getting tax refunds at the expense of the borrower. These services are charging annual interest rates of more than 100% when you add in all the fees including finance charges, administrative fees, and check processing fees. The named plaintiffs Anthony Johnson and Phyllis Robinson say H&R Block "aggressively" marketed its loans at "exorbitant triple-digit interest rates to working poor and minorities" with "finance charges, that when properly calculated in accordance with the Truth in Lending Act, often exceeded 100 percent…show more content…
The opinion of the trial court was taken on 31 July 2007. The opinion of the trial court did not follow a bench trial and included a decision over the pretrial motions of the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff had moved for an injunction and summary judgment thus requiring the defendant to desist while the defendant decided to go for the summary judgment. On March 20, 2008 Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court gave its decision over the case between Pennsylvania Department of Banking and the NCAS of Delaware, a payday lender. Payday loans can be defined as short term loans that are given usually in small amounts but the interest rates charged on them are substantially high. In this case, the APR advertised by the lender was 5.98 per cent that was indeed, the loan’s APR’s accurate calculation by law (McGingley, 2013). Although this was a low rate and was reasonable, the company added an additional monthly participation fee to the rate worth $149.50 on monthly basis. Although this fee of participation does not have to be included in the APR’s calculation, yet the usury law of Pennsylvania’s Section 3A prohibits such forms from charging fees that sum up to over 6 per cent. Nevertheless, the true borrowing cost in this case was nearly 368 per

More about Federal Truth In Lending Act Case Study

Open Document