State law provisions are preempted to the extent that they contradict the requirements in the following chapters of the TILA and the implementing sections of Regulation Z[i]:
- Chapter 1, “General Provisions,” which contains definitions and acceptable methods for determining finance charges and APRs. For example, a state law would be preempted if it required a bank to include in the finance charge any fees that the TILA excludes, such as seller’s points.
- Chapter 2, “Credit Transactions,” which contains disclosure requirements, rescission rights, and certain credit card provisions. For example, a state law would be preempted if it required a bank to use the terms “nominal annual interest rate” in lieu of ”APR.”
- Chapter 3, on “Credit Advertising,” contains consumer credit advertising rules and APR oral disclosure requirements.
Conversely, state law provisions may be appropriate and are not preempted under the TILA if they call for, without contradicting chapters 1, 2, or 3 of the TILA or the implementing sections of Regulation Z, either of the following:
- Disclosure of information not otherwise required. A state law that requires disclosure of the minimum periodic payment for open-end credit, for example, would not be preempted by the TILA.
- Disclosures more detailed than those required. A state law that requires itemization of the amount financed, for example, would not be preempted, unless it contradicts the TILA by requiring the itemization to appear with the disclosure of the amount financed in the segregated closed-end credit disclosures.