In Robinson v. Capital One Auto Fin., No. 1:20-cv-23105-UU, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234681 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2020), Judge Ungaro dismissed a case against an auto lender under TILA based on ‘predatory lending’.

Further, “there is no cause of action under TILA for predatory lending practices.” Pickard v. Serra Mazda, Case No. 2:19-cv-02119-JHE, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184125, *22-23 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2020). Instead, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026, states that TILA is intended to “promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost,” but “[t]he regulation does not generally govern charges for consumer credit” except in certain circumstances not present here relating to credit card accounts. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.1(b) (emphasis added). The Sixth Circuit has explained that “TILA governs disclosures required for ‘closed ended’ transactions (like automobile loans), dictating the substantive disclosures that must be made in 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a), the applicable form and timing requirements in 15 U.S.C. § 1638(b)(1), and the damages available for violations of those provisions in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).” Baker v. Sunny Chevrolet, Inc., 349 F.3d 862, 872 (6th Cir. 2003). Neither Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint nor her initial complaint allege anything about disclosures.