Supreme Court Decision Could Impact Credit Card Rate Hikes

What's Hot


The Most Sinful City in the U.S. Is … (Hint: It’s Not Vegas)Family

How a Mexican Tariff Will Boost the Cost of 6 Common PurchasesFamily

This Free Software Brings Old Laptops Back to LifeMore

How to Protect Yourself From the ‘Can You Hear Me?’ Phone ScamFamily

Report: Walmart to Begin Selling CarsCars

Is Your TV Tracking You? Here’s How to Tell — and Prevent ItAround The House

Trump Scraps FHA Rate Cut — What Does It Mean for You?Borrow

Where to Sell Your Stuff for Top DollarAround The House

11 Staging Tips to Help You Get Top Dollar When Selling Your HomeAround The House

8 Tuition-Free U.S. CollegesCollege

10 Overlooked Expenses That Ruin Your BudgetFamily

4 Car Insurers That Might Raise Rates Even When the Accident Wasn’t Your FaultCars

How to Invest If Trump Kills the ‘Fiduciary Rule’Grow

20 Simple Hacks to Make Your Stuff Last LongerAround The House

12 Surprising Ways to Wreck Your Credit ScoreBorrow

Does your credit card company have the right to raise your interest rate without notice if they previously disclosed that they could in the original account agreement?

This story comes from partner site lowcards.com

The legislative and executive branches of our government have forced a number of changes onto credit card issuers over the past two years. The judicial branch could soon join in.

On December 8, The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, a case that could set a precedent for the notice credit card companies must give consumers about interest rate increases. An important issue is whether credit card companies have to provide cardholders with a notice of an interest rate increase for payment default if the risk of an increase was spelled out in the credit card agreement.

In 2010, the CARD Act added notification rules that are much clearer and friendlier to cardholders, but Chase vs. McCoy is important because credit card companies can still face litigation under the previous version of the rule known as Regulation Z.

James McCoy, the plaintiff, filed a class-action suit in California against Chase Bank when his credit card interest rates were hiked retroactively after a late payment on his credit card account. McCoy argued that the rate hike violates the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z because Chase did not notify him of the increase until his next statement had the new rate.

The district court dismissed the claim. But the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of McCoy, finding that notice was required before increasing McCoy’s interest rate, despite the default rate being previously disclosed in his credit card agreement.

Chase Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Regulation Z, as it was written prior to the amendments, did not apply to rate increases imposed under account agreements that specifically allowed the increases. The rate increase should be covered under a disclosure given to the debtor that states the rate would increase if payments were missed. It was not changing, but merely applying, the terms of credit card agreements when it increased interest rates due to consumer default.

The Supreme Court decision is expected later this term. Its ruling could decide whether the changes in the CARD Act clarified the old Regulation Z or changed its meaning.

Stacy Johnson

It's not the usual blah, blah, blah

I know... every site you visit wants you to subscribe to their newsletter. But our news and advice is actually worth reading! For 25 years, I've been making people richer without making their eyes glaze over. You'll be glad you did. I guarantee it!

💰🗣📰

Read Next: 7 Free Sources of Manufacturer Coupons You Can Find Online

Check Out Our Hottest Deals!

We're always adding new deals and coupons that'll save you big bucks. See the deals to the right and hundreds more in our Deals section.

Click here to explore 1,794 more deals!