2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-31-2009 

# Loui s V al lies v . S ky B ank
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4160

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L oui s V al l ie s v . S k y B a nk " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 4160

L O U I S R
. V A L L I E S, I ndi vi dual l yand on beh al f of

al l si m i l arl ysi tuated veh i cl e bu y ers , A ppel l ant

v. SK Y B A N K , an O hi o bank, l i cens ed t o do b u sin e ss in th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 01- cv- 01438 ( H onor abl e D avi d St ew ar tC er cone)

A r gued Sept ember9, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges
.2 ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber31, 2009) E RI N M
. BR ADY, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) M I CHAEL P
. M ALAKOFF , ES QUI RE M a l a k o f f & Br a d y , P
. C. Sui t e 200, T he Fr i ck B ui l di ng 437 G r antSt r eet Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a 15219 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant M AR T I N C
. BR YC E , J R. , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) ALAN S. KAPL I NSKY, ES QUI RE Ba l l a r d Sp a h rAnd r e ws & I n g e r s o l l , LLP 1735 M arketSt r eet , 51 Fl oor st Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee M ATT HEW A
. BRI NEGAR, ES QUI RE C ent erforR es pons i bl e Lendi ng 910 17t h St r eet , N
. W
. , Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20006 A tt o rne yfo r A m i ciC ur i ae -A p p e llan t, C ent erforR es pons i bl e Lendi ng, N ati o n al C o n su m er L aw C en ter, N at i onal A s s oci at i on of C ons um erA dvocat es J AN T. CHI LT ON, ES QUI RE Sever s on & W er s on1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (a). 1 3 O ne Em bar cade r o C ent er , Sui t e 2600 San Fr anci s co, C al i forni a 94111 A tt o rne yfo r A m i ciC ur i ae - A ppel l ee, A m er i can Banker s A s s oci at i on, A m er i can Fi nanci al Ser vi ces A s s oci at i on, A ssoci at i on of C on sum er V ehicl e L essor s, C hamberof C om m er ce of t he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca, C ons um erB anker s A s s oci at i on, C ons um erM or t gage Coal i t i on, Fi nanci al Ser vi ces R oundt abl e, M or t gage Banker s A s s oci at i on, Penns y l vani a B anker s A s s oci at i on

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge
. I n t hi s pu tat i ve cl as s act i on, t he s ol e i s s ue pr es ent ed by t hi s appea l i s w hether a pl ai nt i ff m us tpr ove detr i m ent al r el i ance i n or dert o r ecove ractual damages s u sta i ned bec aus e of a di s cl os ur e vi ol at i on under§ 1640( a) of the T ruth i n L endi ng 1 A ct( “TILA ”) , 15 U
. S
. C
. § § 1601–67

. T h e D istric t C o u rt, foll ow i ng persuasi ve au t ho ri t yfrom ou r si st er co urt s o f app eal s, concl uded thatdetr i m ent al r el i ance w as requi r ed, and gr ant edTh e p u t a t i v e c l a s s a l l e g e d l y i n c l u d e s t e n s o f t h o us ands of 2 c o n su m e rs w h o f

in a n c e d th e ir p u rc h a se s o f m o to r v e h icle s w ith l oans fr om SkyB ank. T I L A ’ s rul es ar e i m pl ement ed thr ough R egul at i on Z , 12 3 C
. F. R
. Pt
. 226, i s s ued byt he B oar d of G overnor s of the Feder al R es erve Sy s t em, pur s uantt o 15 U
. S. C
. § 1604. R egul at i on Z compel s the cr edi t ort o di s cl os e “[ t ] he i t ems r equi r ed by § 226. 4( d) i n or dert o excl ude ce r t ai n i ns ur ance pr emi um s and d e b tc a n c e l l a t i o n f

e e s f r o m th e f

i n a n c e c h a r g e . ” 1 2 C. F
. R. § 2 26
. 18 (n)
. F or volunt arydeb t c a n c e l l at i on fees, t hese req u ir ement s ar e: “( A ) T he debtcanc el l at i on agr eementor c o v e r a g e i s n o t r e q u i r e d , a n d t h i s f a c t i s d i s c l o s e d i n wr i t i n g ; ( B) T h e f e e o r p re m iu m f

o r th e in iti a l term o f c o v e ra g e is di s cl os ed.
. . . ; ( C ) T he cons um ers i gns ori ni t i al s an af fi r m at i ve w ri tte n re q u e s t f

o r c o v e ra g e a f

te r r e c e iv in g th e d is c lo s u re s . . . .” 1 2 C
. F
. R
. § 2 2 6
. 4 (d)(3 )(i ). 4 su m m a ryju d g m e n t f

o r d e f e n d a n t b e c a u se p lain tiff f a iled to p l e a d a n d c o u l d n o tp r o v e d e t r i me n t a l r e l i a n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I
. L oui s V al l i es br ought a put at i ve cl as s act i on on behal f of cons um er s w ho h ad obt ai ned l oans fr om SkyB ank t o fi nance p u r c h a s e s o f mot o r v e h i c l e s , c l a i mi n g Sk yBa n k v i o l a t e d TI LA 2 d iscl o su re req u ir em en ts, sp ec ifi ca ll y1 2 C
. F
. R
. § 2 2 6
. 4 (d). 35 V al l i es and Sky B ank had ent er ed i nt o a Loan N ot e and Secur i t yA gr eement , w hi ch fi nanced an aut om obi l e and other item s, in c lu d in g a p re m iu m o f $ 3 9 5 f o r G u a ra n tee d A u to Pr ot ect i on ( “G A P” ), a form of debtcanc el l at i on i ns ur ance cover i ng any l oan defi ci ency w hi ch m ay r emai n i n the e v ent p ro p e rtyin su ra n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to c o v e r c o m p lete p ro p e rty l os s . T hi s char ge w as notcal cul at ed i nt o t he “f i nance char ge” a s r e q u i r e d b y T I L A. I n a d d i t i o n , i n s t e a d o f i t e mi z i n g t h e GAP pr emi um i ndi vi dual l y , t he l o an agr eementcombi ned i tw i t h a $ 1 3 9 5 se rv ice c o n tra c t ch a rg e , an d d isc lo se d th e tw o g e n e ra lly as $ 1 7 9 0 to b e p aid to N ati o n al A u to, th e se rvice co n tr ac t sel ler. A tt he s ame t i m e, V al l i es al s o s i gned the G A P W ai ver A gr eementw i t h t he aut om obi l e dea l er , Phi l Fi t t s F o rd, w hi ch cont ai ned the s t at ement s r equi r ed by T I L A
. Sky B ank w as not a p a rtyto th e G A P W a iv e r A g re e m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt in iti a llyg ra n ted S k yB a n k ’s m o tio n to d ism iss f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c la im , h o ld in g th a t S k yB a n k d id notv iol at e TILA beca us e the nec es s arydi s cl os ur es had bee n m ade t o V al l i es
— not by Sky B ank, but by t he aut om obi l e dea l er P h il F itts Fo rd, a third p ar ty. A lte rna ti v ely , the D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t u n d e r T IL A , ea c h c re d ito r is n o t re q u ire d to m ake a l l r el evantdi s cl os ur es . W e r ever s ed and r em an d ed, h o ld in g th a t “th e c re d ito r, a n d th e c re d ito r alo n e , is req u ire d to di s cl os e . . . r equi r ed i nfor m at i on. ” V al l i es v. Sky Bank , 432 F. 3d 493, 495 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. O n r emand, SkyB ank moved for s u mma r yj u d g me n t , a s s e r t i n g t h a ti tful fi l l e d i t s TI LA obl igations thr ough an undi s cl os ed age nt
. A ft ert he D i s t r i ctTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r te x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. 4 § 1331 and 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( e)
. W e have a ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 6 C o u rtd en ied s u m m aryjud g m en t, the p arti es s e ttl ed V all ies’s s t at ut or ydamage cl ai m s under15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a) ( 2) fort he m ax im u m statu toryam o u n t of $ 5 0 1 , 0 0 0
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt cert i fi ed a c l as s ex clus i vel yfors et t l ementpurpos es and a p p ro v e d th e se ttl e m e n t. T he s et t l ement , how ever , expl i ci t l y di d n o t c over V al l i es ’ s actual damage cl ai m s under15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a)( 1 ). S kyB ank m ov ed fo r su m m a ryj ud gm ent on t hese cl ai m s, ar gui ng t hat V al l i es cannot r ecove r actual damages beca us e he fail ed t o pl ead a nd cannotpr ove detr i m ent al r el i ance . T he D i stri ct C ou rt held that t o recover ac tual da m ages, V al l i es m ust s how “( 1) he r ead the TILA di s cl os ur e s t at ement ; ( 2) he u n d erstoo d the c h arg es b eing d iscl o sed ; ( 3 ) h ad the d iscl o su re s t at ementbeen a ccurate, he w oul d have s oughta l ow erpr i ce; and ( 4) he w oul d have obt ai ned a l ow erpr i ce. ” M em. O r derat 10. Fi ndi ng t hatV al l i es “got al l of the r equi r ed i nfor m at i on and vol unt ar i l yel ect ed t o i ncur t he debtcanc el l at i on i ns ur ance w hen h e p u rc h a se d h is ve h icle ,” the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d h e c o u ld nots at i s fyt he thi r d orfour t h el ementr eci t ed , and gr ant ed Sky B a n k ’s m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id

. V al l i es now app eal s. 4See U ni t ed St at es v. P etr of

f

- K l i ne , 5 5 7 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 (6 th 5 C i r . 2009) ( “[A ] ctual damages r equi r e a s how i ng of detr i m ent al re lian c e .”); McD o na ld v. C hecks-N -Ad van ce, Inc. (

In re Fe rr e ll) , 5 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (fin d in g n o v a lid bas i s t o over tur n t he rul e r equi r i ng a s how i ng of detr i m ent al re lian c e to e sta b lish a c tu a l d a m a g e s); G old C ountr y Lenders v. Sm i th ( I n r e Sm i th) , 2 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ We j oi n w i t h ot herci r cui t s and hol d that i n or dert o r ece i ve ac tual dam ages for a T ILA viol at i on . . . a bo rr ow e r m u st e stabl i sh d e trim e n tal re lian c e .”); Turne rv. B enef i ci alC or p. , 242 F. 3d 1023, 1028 ( 1 1t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc ) ( “W e hol d t hat detr i m ental r el i ance i s an el ementof a TI L A cl ai m foractual d a m a g e s . . . .”); P errone v. G en. Motors A cceptance C orp . , 232 F
. 3 d 433, 434–40 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hatdetr i m ent al r el i ance i s an el em en t o f a cl ai m foractual damages and 7 II. T hi s cas e pr es ent s a ques t i on of s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on, a n d “ [ o ]u r re v iew o f

q u e stio n s o f

sta tu to ryin te r p r e ta tio n is pl enary . ” D i r ect

TV I nc. v. Sei j as , 5 0 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 (3d C ir
. 200 7 ). A l t hough w e have nothad an opportuni t yt o exami ne t hi s i s s ue, w e have pre vi ous l y not ed t hat “[s ] ever al cour t s have hel d that d etri m en tal reli an ce is an elem en t of estab li sh ing ac tual damages underT I L A
. ” I n r e C m t y. B ank of

N

. V a. , 418 F. 3d 277, 302 n. 20 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. I n fac t , everycour tof appe al s t hat has s poken on thi s i s s ue has r equi r ed a s how i ng of detr i m ent al r el i ance . M os tdi s t r i ctcour t s ar e i n acc or d. E ven V al l i es

5 6re jec tin g n u m e ro u s a rg u m e n ts to th e c o n tra ry ); S t o u tv . J

. D. B yr i der , 228 F. 3d 709, 718 ( 6t h C i r . 2000) ( aff i r m i ng t he deni al of cl as s cert i fi cat i on bas ed on the nee d fori ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m entof w hether“ea ch put at i ve cl as s m ember r el i ed upon f a lse re p re se n tatio n s o r f a ilu re s to d isc lo se ” ); P e ters v . Jim Lupi ent O lds m obi l e C o. , 220 F
. 3 d 9 15, 917 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) ( r equi r i ng a s how i ng of pr oxi m at e ca us at i on and adopt i ng a f o u r-p ro n g re lian c e tes t f o r e sta b lish in g a c tu a l d a m a g e s); B iz i er v. G l obe Fi n. Ser vs . , I

nc. , 654 F. 2d 1, 4 ( 1s tC i r . 1981) ( not i ng i n di ct a the ne ed t o s how caus at i on foran aw ar d of ac tual damages “i n addi t i on t o a thr es hol d s how i ng of a vi ol at i on of a T IL A req u ir em en t”). See e

. g. , W

ar bur t on v. Foxt ons , I

nc. , N o . 0 4
- 2 4 7 4 , 2 0 0 5 WL 6 1 3 9 8 5 1 2 , at * 9

– 1 0 (D .N .J. Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ); N evar ezv. O ’ C onnor C hevr ol et

, I nc. , 3 0 3 F
. S u p p . 2 d 9 2 7 , 9 3 4 (N
. D
. Il l. 2 0 0 4 ); In re C ur r ency C onver

s i on Fee Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 265 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 3 ); C annon v. C her r y Hi l lToyot a, I

nc. , 16 1 F. S u p p . 2 d 3 6 2 (D .N .J. 2 0 0 1 ); A nders on v. R iz z a C hevr ol et

, I nc. , 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 3

– 1 4 (N .D . Ill . 1 9 9 8 ); B r is t erv. A l lSt ar C hevr ol et

, I nc. , 9 8 6 F
. S u p p . 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 8 (E
. D
. L a. 19 9 7 ); B ar l ow v. E vans , 9 9 2 F
. S u p p . 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 1 (M
. D
. A la. 1 9 9 7 ); C i r one- Shadow v. U

ni on Nis s an , 9 5 5 F
. S u p p . 9 3 8 , 9 4 3 ( N. D. Ill. 1 9 9 7 ); W

i l ey v . E ar l ’s P aw n & Je w elr y, I nc. , 950 F. Supp. 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 4

– 1 5 (S .D . A la. 1 9 9 7 ); A d i e lv . C h a s e Fe d . Sa v . & L o a n A ss’n , 6 3 0 F
. S u p p . 1 3 1 , 1 3 3

– 3 5 (S .D
. F l a . 1 9 8 6 ), af f’ d, 8 1 0 F .2 d 1 0 5 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); McC oy v. Sal em Mor t gage C o. , 87 4 F .R .D . 8 , 1 2

– 1 3 (E .D . M ic h . 1 9 7 6 ). B uts ee Lopezv. O r l or , 176 F. R
. D
. 35, 40 ( D
. C onn. 1997) ( gr ant i ng cl as s cert i fi cat i on and r ej ect i ng t he ar gum entt hatT I L A pl ai nt i ffs cannotr ecove r a c tu a l d a m a g e s u n les s th e yc o u ld h a v e g o tten m o re f a v o r a b le t erm s el sew here) ; S ut l i

f f v. C ount

y Sav. & Loan C o. , 53 3 F. Supp. 1307, 1313 ( N
. D
. O hi o 1982) ( m eas ur i ng actual damages t o b e t he d i fference b et w een the i m properl yi ncreased i nter est ra te a n d th e o rig in a l in ter e st ra te) ; In re R u ss e ll , 72 B
. R
. 855, 8 5 7 (B an k r. E
. D
. P a. 19 8 7 ) (co n clud ing that ac tual d am ag es a re a v a ilab le f

o r “ su b sta n tial” T IL A v io latio n s w ith o u t th e n e e d to p rov e d etri m en tal reli an ce ). 9 con cede s t he gr eatw ei ghtof author i t yfavor s t he detr i m ent al r el i ance s t andar d. A ccor di ngl y , the cor e theme under l y i ng V a lli e s’s n u m e ro u s a rg u m e n ts i s tha t th e w e ig h t o f a u th o rityis w rong. I n a t h o r o u g h a n d wel l

- r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n , t h e Di s t r i ct C o u rt re jec ted V a lli e s’s c h a llen g e s, c o rre c tlyh o ld in g th a t a s how i ng of detr i m ent al r el i ance i s nece s s ary to rec overactual dam ages fo r TIL A dis cl osure vi olat i on s. A
. T he Truth i n L endi ng A ctpr ovi des a r ange of r emedi es t o achi eve i t s goal s . Fi r s t , i tauthor i zes t he Feder al T r ade Co mmi s s i o n a s i t s o v e r a l l e n f o r c e men ta g e n c y , 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1607( c) , and pr ovi des ot herfede r al agenc i es w i t h enfor cement p o w er ov er certain categ o ri es of lend ers, 1 5 U
. S
. C . § 1 6 0 7 (a). T he enf or cementagenc i es ar e author i zed t o r emedi at e unl aw ful fi nan ce cha rges byre q uir i ng adjustm ents of co nsum ers ’10 acc ount s . 15 U
. S. C
. § 1607( e) ( 1)
. Seco n d , T I L A i m pos es c r i mi n a l l i a b i l i t yf

o rk n o wi n g a n d wi l l f

u l v i o l a t i o n s . 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1611. Fi nal l y , T I L A cre ates a pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on for ac tual d am a g es, 15 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (a)(1), an d also fo r st atuto ry damages , 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a) ( 2)
. Forcl as s act i on s ui t s ar i s i ng o u t o f the sam e T IL A v iolati o n , C o n g ress c ap p ed the re co v ery of s t atut or ydamages t o t he l es s erof $500,000 or1% of the d ef en d an t’ s n et w o rth
. 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (a)(2)(B ). A s the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C ir c u it o b se rv e d , “[ u ]n d e r th is r egi m e, s t atut or ydamages pr ovi de at l eas t a part i al r emedyfor all m ate ri a l T IL A v iolati o n s; ho w ev er, actua l dam ag es e n su re that co n su m ers w h o h av e su ff ere d ac tual h arm d u e to a lend er’s faul t ydi s cl os ur es can be ful l y compensa t ed .
. . . ” Turne rv. B enef i ci alC or p. , 242 F. 3d 1023, 1026 ( 11t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc )
. As n o t e d , t h e p a r t i e s h e r e s e t t l e d t h e s t a tu t o r yd a m age c laim s u n d e r § 1 6 4 0 (a )(2 ) f o r th e m a x im u m sta tu to rya m o u n t, and t h e p u t a t i v e c l a s s i s n o w s e e k i n g a c tu a l d a ma g e s under § 1 6 4 0 (a)(1).

“ [ E ]v e rye x e rc ise o f sta tu to ryin ter p re tatio n b e g in s w ith an exa m i nat i on of t he pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut e. ” R osenb erg v. X M V ent ur es , 2 7 4 F .3 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e sta tu te h e re p ro v id e s in p a rt: E xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded i n t hi s s ect i on, anycr edi t or w ho fai l s t o compl y w i t h anyr equi r ementi m pos ed under t hi s par t , i ncl udi ng anyr equi r ementunders ec ti on 1635 o f th is titl e , su b se c tio n (f

) o r (g ) o f s e c tio n 1 6 4 1 o f th is t i t l e, orpar tD orE of thi s s ubchapt erw i t h r es pectt o any11 per s on i s l i abl e t o s uch per s on i n an am ountequal t o t he s um of — ( 1) anyactual damage s us t ai ned bys uch per s on as a r es ul tof the fa i l ur e; ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) i n t he ca s e of a n i ndi vi dual act i on tw ice th e a m o u n t o f

a n yf in a n c e c h a rg e in connec t i on w i t h t he t r ans act i on, ( i i ) i n t he cas e of a n i ndi vi dual act i on r el ati n g t o a c o n su m e r le a se u n d e r p a rt E o f th is s ubchapt er , 25 perce n tum of the t ot al amount of m ont hlypaym ent s undert he lea se , ex c e p t th a t th e liab ili tyu n d e r th is s ubpar agr aph s hal l notbe l es s t han $100 no r gr eat er than $1 , 00 0, or ( i i i ) i n the case o f a n in d iv id u a l ac tio n re latin g to a c re d it tra n sa c tio n n o t u n d e r a n o p e n e n d c re d it p lan th at i s sec u red b yrea l pro p erty o r a dw el li ng, notl es s t han $400 orgr eat er t han $4, 000; or ( B ) i n t he ca s e of a cl as s act i on, s uch amount as t he courtm ayal l ow , exce ptt hat as t o eac h m emberof the clas s no m i ni m um r ecove r ys hal l be appl i cab l e , and t he t ot al r ecove r y under t hi s s ubpar agr aph i n any cl as s act i on ors er i es of cl as s act i ons a ris in g o u t o f

th e sa m e f

a ilu re to c o m p ly by t he same cr edi t ors hal l notbe more t han12 the l es s erof $500, 000 or1 percentum of th e n e t w o rth o f

th e c re d ito r; ( 3) i n t he cas e of any s ucce s s ful act i on t o enfor ce t he for egoi ng l i abi l i t y or i n anyact i on i n w hi ch a per s on i s det erm i ned t o have a r i ghtof r es ci s s i on under se ct i on 1635 of thi s t i t l e, t he cos t s of the act i on, t ogetherw i t h a r eas onabl e at t or ney ' s fee as det erm i ned byt he court ; and ( 4) i n the cas e of a fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h any r e q u i r e me n tu n d e rs e c t i o n 1 6 3 9 o f t h i s t i t l e , an am o untequal t o t he s um of al l fi nance char ges and fe es pai d byt he cons um er , unl es s t he cr edi t or demon str at es t hatt he fa i l ur e t o compl yi s not m a ter ial. I n det erm i ni ng t he amountof aw ar d i n anycl as s act i on, t he court s hal l cons i der , among ot herr el evantfac t or s , t he am o u n t of

anyactual damages aw ar ded, t he fr equenc y an d p ersist en ce o f f

ail u res o f c o m p li an ce b ythe c red it o r, t he r es our ces of the cr edi t or , t he numberof per s ons ad v erse lyaf

fe cted , an d the ex tent to w h ich the c red it o r’s f a ilu re o f c o m p lia n c e w a s in te n tio n a l. . . . 1 5 U .S .C . § 1640( a)
. T he A ct , t her efor e, pr ovi des fordi ffe r ent for m s of compensato r ydamages

— actual damages under § 1640( a) ( 1) , and s t atut or y damages for i ndi vi duals under § 1 6 4 0 (a )( 2 )(A ) an d fo r class a cti o n s u n d er § 1 6 4 0 (a)(2)(B ). A ctual damages ar e tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y fr om s t atut or ydamages and have t hei r ow n defi ni t i on. T he def i ni t i on of the t erm “ac tualS ee g en era ll y E u g e n e J. K e lley , Jr. & Jo h n L . R o p ieq u e t, 7 A ct ualD am ages U

nderthe TI

LA : C ol l aps i ng C l as s A ct i ons , 55 13 d a m a g e s ” is “ [ a ]n a m o u n t aw a rd e d to a c o m p lain a n t to compensa t e fora pr oven i nj ur yor l os s ; damages t hatr epay actual l os s es . ” B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary 4 4 5 (9th ed
. 2 0 0 9 ). C oupl ed w i t h t he phr as e “s us t ai ned bys uch per s on as a r es ul tof th e f a ilu re ,” th e s ta tu te “ lin k s th e lo s s to th e f a ilu re to d is c lo s e .” P errone v. G en. Motors A cceptance C orp . , 232 F. 3d 433, 436 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); see al

so P et ers v. Ji m Lupi ent O lds m obi l e C o. , 220 F. 3d 915, 916–17 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) ( appl y i ng t he tr adi t i onal defi ni t i on of the t erm “ac tual damages ” t o r equi r e t hatpl ai nt i ff p r o v e s a n i n

j u r yo rl o s s )
. Th e p l a i n me a n i n g o f § 1 6 4 0( a) r equi r es caus at i on t o r ecove ractual damages
. I n t he cont extof T IL A d isc lo su re v io latio n s, a c re d ito r’s f a ilu re to p ro p e rly di s cl os e m us t caus e actual damages ; t hati s , w i t houtdetr i m ent al rel i ance o n fau l t ydis cl osures ( or no d i scl osure) , t here i s no loss (o r a c tu a l d a m a g e ). See, e. g. , G o ld C o u n try L en d ers v . Sm ith ( In r e Sm i th) , 2 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 7 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (c it ing d ict ion ary defini t i on of “actual da m ages” t o con cl ud e t hat a b orr ow er m ust estab li sh d etri m en tal reli an ce ); Turne r , 242 F
. 3 d at1028 ( fi ndi ng t hat t he st atut e’ s l anguage i ndi cat es dr aft er s ’ i nt ent i on t hatpl ai nt i ffs m us tdemonst r at e detr i m ent al r el i ance t o r ecove r ac tual d am ag es). Som e comm ent at or s have not ed thatundera detr i m ent al r el i ance s t andar d, actual damage s f o rTI LA di s c l o s u r e vi ol at i ons m aybe di ffi cul tt o pr ove. Fur t herm o re, det r i m ent al r el i ance 7C o n su m er Fin
. L
. Q
. R ep . 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (S p ri n g -F all, 2 0 0 1 ), re p rin ted in T

ru th in L e n d in g, 2 0 0 8 S u p p lem e n t 4 6 9 ( Al v i n C. H arrell ed
. 2 0 0 8 ); R a lp h J . R o h n e r & F re d H . M ille r, T ru th in Lendi ng 8 0 5 (20 0 0 ). T he vi ew of the governm entenfor cementagenc i es char ged 8 w ith e n f o rc in g T IL A , c it e d b yV a lli e s, d o e s n o t as sis t in

14 m aycr eat e obs t acl es for class cert i fi cat i on beca us e of the in d iv id u a liz e d f

a c t- s p e c if

ic n a tu re o f th e re lia n c e in q u ir y . See, e. g. , P er r o ne , 232 F. 3d at440 ( deny i ng cl as s cert i fi cat i on “[s ] i nce i ndi vi du al r el i ance i s nece s s aryt o pr ove ac tual d am ag es” ); s ee ge ner al l y K e lle y& R o p ie q u e t, s u p r a n o te 7

. B ut t he r equi r ement s of pr ovi ng actual damages ar e di ct at ed by T I L A ’ s r emedi al s t ructur e. B ypr ovi di ng fors t atut or yand actual damages, t he s t atut e ac hi eves i t s dual purpos e of det err ence and compens at i on. T he compens at or yr emedyof actual damages i s perm i t t ed onl yi n cas es w here t he vi ol at i on caus ed har m
— w her e har m w as “s us t ai ned by[the cons um er ] as a r es ul tof” the vi ol ati o n . 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a) ( 1)
. W i t hout detr i m ent al r el i ance , onl ys t atut or ydamages ar e ava i l abl e. B
. B e c a u se th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e o f § 1 6 4 0 (a ) is u n a m b ig u o u s w e n e e d n o t lo o k to leg isla tiv e h isto ryto a sc e rta in the m ea n ing o f the s tatu te. N o n ethe less, the leg isl ati v e h ist o ry of T ILA provides suppo rtf or the n ecessi t yt o est abli sh detr i m ental rel i ance to recover actual dam ages: 8i nt erpr et i ng § 1640( a) beca us e the J oi nt N ot i ce of St at ementof E n f o rc e m e n t P o licy , 4 4 F e d . R e g . 1 2 2 2 (Ja n . 4 , 1 9 7 9 ), d e a ls s ol el yw i t h t he r egul at or y enfor cementpr ovi s i on under§ 1607. Th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y c i t e d r e f e r s t o t h e Tru t h i n L endi ng 9 A m e n d m e n ts o f 1 9 9 5 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 -2 9 , 1 0 9 S tat. 2 7 1 (S e p t. 30, 1995)
. C ongr es s w as t hen cont empl at i ng i ncr eas i ng caps on statu tory d am ag es an d cre ati n g d iffe ren t r em ed ies fo r disclos u re v iolati o n s inv o lving rea l pro p ertyloan s. T h is leg isl ati v e h ist o ry i s r el evantbeca us e at t he t i m e C ongr es s nece s s ar i l ycons i der ed th e m e a n in g o f

th e th e n -e x i s t i n g re m e d ie s . B ar nes v. C ohen , 7 4 9 F .2 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 5

– 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ [ S ]ta tem e n ts a s to l egi s l at i ve i nt entm ade byl egi s l at or s s ubs equentt o t he enac t m en t o f a s t a tu t e a r e . . . e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s an e x p e rt o p in io n c o n c e rn in g [ th e s ta tu te ’s ] p ro p e r i n te rp re ta tio n .” 15 Sect ion 130( a) of TILA al l ow s a cons um ert o r ecove r b o th a c tu a l an d sta tu to ryd a m a g e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith T IL A v iolatio n s . H o w ev er, st atuto ryd am ag es a re p rov ided in T IL A b ec au se a ctua l dam ag es, w h ich re q u ir e pr oof thatt he borr ow ers uffe r ed a l os s i n r el i ance upon th e in a c c u r a te d isc lo su re , are e x tre m e lyd if f icu lt t o est abli sh. T o recov er actual dam ages, con su m ers m ust s how t hatt heys uffe r ed a l os s beca us e t hey r el i ed on an i nacc ur at e ori ncompl et e di s cl os ur e. 141 C ong. R ec. 26567, 2 6 5 7 6 ( 1995) ( s t at ementof R ep. M cC o ll u m , co -au tho r o f legislat ion ); s ee al

s o H
. R
. R ep. N o. 9(i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted)). S ee a lso A d ielv. C h a se F ed

. Sa v. & L o a n A ss’n , 63 0 F. 10 Supp. 131, 134 ( S. D
. Fl a. 1986) (no ti ng t he di ffi cul t yof es t abl i s hi ng caus at i on foractual damages w as “the veryi m petus b e h i n d t h e l e g i s l a t i v e d e c i s i o n t o c o n s t ru c ta wo r k a b l e s c h e me o f sta tu to ryd a m a g e s” ); McC oy v. Sal em Mo r t gage C o. , 74 F. R
. D
. 8, 12 ( E
. D
. M i ch. 1976) ( “[I ] ts eems l i kel yt hati f ac tual d am ag es c o u ld b e c o m p u ted b ya sim p le fo rm u la, n o statu tory d am ag e p rov isi o n w o u ld h av e b ee n n ec essa ry . ”). 16 1 0 4 -19 3 , at 99 (19 9 5 ) (“ T o rec o v er ac tual d am ag es, co n su m ers m us ts how t hatt hey suffe r ed a l os s beca us e theyr el i ed on an inac cur at e ori ncompl et e di s cl os ur e. ”)
. St atut or ydamages provide a com pen sat oryre m e d y for T ILA viol at i on s and als o eff ectuat e TILA ’ s det err ence obj ect i ves . A ctual damages co m p en sate th o s e co n su m ers w h o h av e su ff ere d ac tual h arm b ecause of the vi olat i on s. S t atutory dam ages “ar e provided in T I L A becaus e ac tual damages , w hi ch r equi r e pr oof thatt he [ c o n su m e r] s u f

f e re d a lo ss in r e lian c e u p o n th e in a c c u ra te di s cl os ur e, ar e extr emel ydi ffi cul tt o es t abl i s h. ” 141 C ong. R ec. 2 6 7 5 8 , 2 6 8 9 8 (19 9 5 ) (st atem en t of S en . M ac k ). T IL A ’s 10 l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ys u p por t s ourconcl us i on t hata s how i ng of detr i m ent al r el i ance i s r equi r ed t o r ecove ractual damages for T ILA dis cl osure vi olat i on s.T he sai d clause of § 1 64 0(a) st at es: 11 I n det erm i ni ng t he amountof aw ar d i n any cl as s act i on, t he cour t s hal l cons i der , among ot herr el evantfac t or s , t he amount of any actual damages aw ar ded, t he freq uency an d p ersist en ce o f f

ail u res o f c o m p li an ce b ythe c red it o r, t he r es our ces of the cr edi t or , t he numberof per s ons 17 C
. V a lli e s c o n ten d s th e re lian c e re q uir em ent i s i nco m pa tib le w i t h ot herpr ovi s i ons i n T I L A , s uch as § 1607( e) ( 2) ( d) t hat exempt s r emedi at i on of fi nance char ges w her e t echni cal vi ol at i o n s “have notm i s l ed orot herw i s e dec ei ved the cons um er . ” 15 U
. S. C
. § 1607( e) ( 2) ( d)
. T he abs ence of s i m i l ar l anguage i n § 1640( a) ( 1) , V al l i es cont ends , demonst r at es l ack of C ongr es s i onal i nt entt o i m pos e a r el i ance r equi r ement on actual damages cl ai m s . B utt hi s i gnor es t he fa ctt hatpr oof of “ actual dam ag es ” under§ 1640( a) ( 1) r equi r es a s how i ng of ca us at i on and actual l os s . C ongr es s ’ s fai l ur e t o i ncl ude t he above

- quot ed lan g u a g e in § 1 6 4 0 (a )(1 ) d o e s n o t su p p o rt a re a so n a b le i nfer ence t hati tdi d noti nt end the detri m ent al r el i ance re q u ire m e n t. V al l i es al s o ar gues t he detr i m ent al r el i ance r equi r ement confl i ct s w i t h ot herl angu ag e i n § 1640. W e di s agr ee. I tdoes n o t c o n f lict w ith th e c lau se in § 1 6 4 0 (a ), in stru c tin g th e c o u rts t o cons i der“the amountof any actual damages aw ar ded” w hen s e t t i ng s t a tu t o r yd a ma g e s i n a c l a s s a c t i o n . 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1640( a)
. T he s t atut e cr eat es n o pr es um pt i on t hatactual

11ad v erse lyaf fe cted , an d the e x tent to w h ich th e c red it o r’s f a ilu re o f c o m p lian c e w a s in ten tio n a l. S ect i on 16 40 (g) st at es: 12 T he mul t i pl e fa i l ur e t o di s cl os e t o anyper s on any in f o rm a tio n re q u ire d u n d e r th is p a rt o r p a rt D o r E o f th is su b c h a p ter to b e d isc lo se d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a sin g le acc ountunderan open e nd cons um ercr edi tpl an , ot her s i ngl e cons um ercr edi ts al e, consu m erl oan, cons um er lea se , o r o th e r e x ten sio n o f c o n su m e r c re d it, sh a ll en tit le t he per s on t o a s i ngl e r ecove r yundert hi s s ect i on but cont i nued fai l ur e t o di s cl os e af t era r ecove r yhas been grant ed shal l give ri se to ri gh t s t o ad dit i on al recoveri es. T hi s su b sec ti on does notbaranyr emedyperm i t t ed by s e c tio n 1 6 3 5 o f

th is title
. 18 damages w i l l be aw ar ded— c o u rt s mustcons i deractual damages if th e ya re a w a rd e d
. See Per r one , 2 3 2 F .3 d 4 3 9 n .6 (“ T h e re is no l ogi cal connec t i on betw een t hi s s t at ement [i n § 1640( a) ] and t he s epar at e ques t i on of w hatfor m ul a t o applyform eas ur i ng ac tual d am ag es.”). L i kew i s e, t he detr i m ent al r el i ance r equi r ement does not confl i ctw i t h § 1640( g) , w hi ch pr ovi des cons um er s addi t iona l r e c o v e r i e s f

o rp o s t
- j u d g me n t TI LA v i o l a t i o n s . 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 4 0 (g). V all ies’s asse rt ion that itis n o t p o ssible f o r a 12 c o n su m e r to re ly o n p o st-re c o v e ryT IL A v io latio n s is in c o rre c t. F o r ex am p le, a c o n su m er, w h o p rev io u slyrec o v ere d fo r ha rm19 caus ed by i nacc ur at e bank s t at ement s , coul d r el y on lat er i nacc ur aci es , bel i evi n g t hata cr edi t orhad corr ect ed the vi ol at i on. M or eover , § 1 6 4 0 (g) does notdi s t i ngui s h betw een actual damages and s t atut or ydamages
. T hus , addi t i onal re c o v e rie s in th e f

o rm o f sta tu to ryd a m a g e s m ig h t b e a v a ilab le under§ 1640(g) ev en w her e detr i m ent al r el i ance cannotbe pr oven. C o n tr aryto V all ies’s arg u m en ts, th e R eg u lat o ry E nfor cementpr ovi s i on, 15 U
. S. C
. § 1607, and t he C or r ect i on of E r r or s pr ovi s i on, 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( b) , do not i dent i fya t es tfor rec o v ery o f ac tual d am ag es resu lt ing fro m T IL A d isc losu re vi ol at i ons . T he R egul at or yE nfor cementpr ovi s i on author i zes r e l e va nte nf

or c e menta ge nc i e s t o r e qu i r e c r e di t or s t o a dj us t b o rro w e r a c c o u n ts t o r e m e d yd isc lo su re v io latio n s. B u t th is gr antof author i t yt o s eek r es t i tut i onarydamages does notm ean th e s a m e a u th o ri ty is g iv e n to p ri v a te litig a n ts
. F u rt h e rm o re , a cr ed i t or ’ s l i abi l i t yi s l i m i t ed notonl ybyr egul at or ydi s cr et i on, bu t al s o byt he s t atut e i t s el f i n ci r cumst ance s w her e the adj us t m ent“w oul d have a si gni fi cant l y adver s e i m pactupon t he saf etyo r so u n d n ess of the cred it o r. ” 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 7 (e)(3)(A ). N o s uch l i m i t at i on exi s t s forpr i vat e l i t i gant s under§ 1640. A ccor di ngl y , t he author i t ypr ovi d ed to t he enf or ci ng agenc i es u n d e r § 1 6 0 7 c a n n o t b e e q u a ted w ith th e rig h ts o f p riv a te l i t i gant s under§ 1640. N o r are the re c o n fli cts w ith the C o rrecti o n o f E rrors pr ovi s i on. Sect i on 1640( b) pr ovi des cr edi t or s w i t h a s afe harbor fro m li ab il ityfo r T IL A d iscl o su re v iolati o n s w h en cre d it o rsS ect i on 16 40 (b) st at es: 13 A cr edi t ororas s i gnee ha s no l i abi l i t y under t hi s s ect i on o r se c tio n 1 6 0 7 o f th is tit le o r se c tio n 1 6 1 1 o f th is titl e forany fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h anyr equi r ementi m pos ed u n d e r th is p a rt o r p a rt E o f th is su b c h a p ter , if w ith in six ty day s aft erdi s cover i ng an erro r, w hetherpur s uantt o a fi nal w r i t t en exam ina t i on r epor tornot i ce i s s ued under sec ti o n 1 6 0 7 (e)(1) of this ti tl e or th rou g h the c red it o r’s oras s i gnee’ s ow n pr ocedur es , and pr i ort o t he i ns t i tut i on of an a ct i on underthi s s ect i on ort he r ece i ptof w r i t t en not i ce of

t he err orfr om t h e o b l i gor , t he cr edi t oror as s i gnee not i fi es t he per s on conce r ned of the err orand m akes w hat everadj us t m ent s i n t he appr opr i ate a ccount ar e n ece s s aryt o as s ur e thatt he per s on w i l l notbe r eq u i r e d t o p a ya n a mou n ti n e x c e s s o f t h e c har ge actual l ydi s cl os ed, or t he dol l arequi val entof the annua l p e rc e n ta g e ra te a c tu a lly d is c lo s e d , w h ic h e v e r i s lo w e r.

20 choos e t o m ake adj us t m ent s t o bor r ow er acc ount s “t o as s ur e that t he per s on w i l l notbe r equi r ed t o payan amounti n exce s s of the char ge actual l y di s cl os ed, ort he dol l arequi val entof the annua l per cent age r at e ac tual l ydi s cl os ed, w hi chever is low er . ” 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( b)
. W hi l e thi s pr ovi s i on expl i ci t l yes t abl i s hes 13 a f o rm u la f o r a c c o u n t ad

ju s tm e n ts th e c re d ito rs m u st m a k e to av ail them selv es of saf e-h arb o r p rotec ti o n s, it d o es n o t turn actual damages i nt o a r es t i tut i on r emedy
. T he C or r ect i on of E r r or s pr ovi s i on i s notm anda tory . I tpr ovi des a s hi el d fr om liab ili tyf

o r d isc lo su re v io latio n s to c re d ito rs w h o c h o o se to21 c o rre c t th e m . S e c tio n 1 6 4 0 (b ) sh ield s c re d ito rs f ro m b o th c iv il liab ili ty a n d re g u lato ry e n f o rc e m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , c o n tra ry to V al l i es ’ s ar gum ent s , t he pr ovi s i on pr ovides cr edi t or s an economi c i n cent i ve t o s el f- corr ectdi s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons , even w her e ac tual damages m i ghtnotbe r ecove r abl e, becaus e the enfor cementagenc i es have author i t yunderT I L A t o s eek resti tuti o n aryad

justm en ts. 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 7 (e).

D
. V al l i es ’ s s ear ch fors uppor t i n ot her s t atut es i s unavai l i ng b ecaus e thos e s t atut es addr es s di ffe r ents ubj ectm at t er s . T he pr ovi s i ons of the Equal C r edi tO pport u ni t yA ct( “EC O A ”) , 15 U
. S. C
. §§ 1691–1691f, w hi ch pr ohi bi t s cr edi tdi s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of r ace , col or , r el i gi on, nat i onal or i gi n, s ex orm ar i t al s t atus , orage, d o notconfl i ctw i t h t he detr i m ent al r el i ance r e q u i r e me n t
. Se c t i on 1691e( a) pr ovi des t hat“[a ] nycr edi t orw ho f a i l s t o c o mp l ywi t h a n yr e q u i r e me n ti mp o s e d u n d e r[ E CO A] s hal l be l i abl e t o t he aggr i eved appl i cant for any actual damages su stai n ed b ysu ch ap p li ca n t. ” A lth o u g h b o th E C O A ’s § 1691e( a) and TILA ’ s § 1640( a)( 1 ) e m pl oy“anyactual da ma g e ” l a n g u a ge, underE C O A , t he meas ur e of a ctual damages is ha rm ca u sed b y cre d it o rs’ u n law fu l d iscri m inato ryb eh av ior. S im il arl y , t he civi l l i abil i t yprovis i on s of t he E l ect ronic Funds Tr ans ferA ct( “EF T A ”) , 15 U
. S. C
. §§ 1693–1693r , do not c o n f li c t w ith re q u irin g a sh o w in g o f d e trim e n tal re lian c e to r e c o v e ra c tu a l d a ma g e s f o rTI LA d i s c l o s u r e v i o l a t i o n s . EFTA empl oy s t he same l anguage as § 1640( a) ( 1) t o defi ne l i abi l i t yforS ect i on 16 93 b(d)( 3) st at es: 14 ( A ) I n gener al T h e re g u latio n s p re sc rib e d u n d e r p a ra g ra p h (1 ) sh a ll r equi r e anyaut o m ated t el l erm achi ne oper at orw ho i m po ses a fee on a nycon sum er for pr ov i din g ho st tra n sf e r se rv ice s to su c h c o n su m e r to p ro v id e n o tic e in acc or dance w i t h s ubpar agr aph ( B ) t o t he cons um er ( at t he t i m e the s ervi ce i s pr ovi ded) of— ( i ) t he fa ctt hata fe e i s i m pos ed bys uch oper at or forpr ovi di ng t he s ervi ce; and (i i) th e a m o u n t o f

a n ys u c h f

e e . (B ) N o t i ce requir em ents ( i ) O n t he machi ne T he not i ce r equi r ed undercl au se (i ) of s u b par agr aph ( A ) w i t h r es pectt o anyfee d e sc rib e d in su c h su b p a ra g ra p h sh a ll b e p o ste d in a pr om i nentand cons pi cuous l ocat i on on or att he a u to m a ted telle r m a c h in e a t w h ich th e e lec tro n ic f u n d tr a n s f

e r i s in itia te d b yth e c o n s u m e r. ( i i ) O n t he s cr een T h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d u n d e r c l a u s e s ( i ) a n d ( i i ) of s ubpar agr aph ( A ) w i t h r es p ectt o anyfee des cr i bed i n s uch s ubpar agr aph s hal l appea ron t he s cr een of

t he aut om at ed t el l erm achi ne, oron 22 actual damages
. 15 U
. S. C
. § 1693m ( a) ( 1)
. B utactual damages f o r vi o l a t i o n s o f

EF TA’ s “ n o t i c e ” p r o v i s i o n s , 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 9 3 b ( d ) ( 3 ) ( B) , whi c h a r e a n a l o g o u s t o v i o l a t i o n s o f TI LA 14a pape rnot i ce i s s ued fr om s uch m achi ne, aft ert he tra n sa c tio n is in iti a ted a n d b e f o re th e c o n su m e r is i r rev o ca b ly co m m it ted t o compl et i ng t he t r ans act i on, exce ptt hatdur i ng t he per i od begi nni ng on N ovember 12, 1999, and endi ng on D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , this c lau se sh a ll n o t a p p lyto anyaut om at ed tel l erm achi ne thatl acks t he t echni cal capa bi l i t yt o di s cl os e the noti ce on the s cr een or t o i s s ue a paper not i ce af ter t he tra n sa c tio n is in iti a ted a n d b e f o re th e c o n su m e r is i r r evoca bl y commi t t e d t o c o mpl e t i n g t he tr a n s a c tio n . ( C ) Pr ohi bi t i on on fee s notpr oper l ydi s cl os ed and expl i ci t l yas s um ed bycons um er N o fee m ay be i m pos ed by any aut om at ed t el l erm achi ne oper at or i n connec t i on w i t h any el ectr oni c fund t r ans fer i ni t i at ed bya cons um erfor w h ic h a not i ce i s r equi r ed un der subp aragr aph (A ), un l ess— (i) th e c o n su m e r re c e iv e s su c h n o tice in acc or dance w i t h s ubpar agr aph ( B ) ; and ( i i ) t he cons um erel ect s t o cont i nue i n t he manner nece s s aryt o eff

ectt he tr ans act i on aft err ece i vi ng s uch not i ce. 23 di s cl os ur e pr ovi s i ons , r equi r e a show i ng of detr i m ent al r el i ance . See, e. g. , V

oeks v. P i l ot TravelC trs. , 560 F. Supp. 2d 718, 725 ( E
. D
. W i s . 2008) ( “To show actual damages under § 1693m ( a) ( 1) a pl ai nt i ff m u st pl ead a nd pr ove detr i m ent al24 re lian c e .”); Ma r t

z v . PNC Ban k

, N. A. , N o. C i v A 06- 1075, 2007 W L 2343800, at*7–8 (W
. D
. Pa. A ug. 15, 2007) ( r efe r enci ng cas es r equi r i ng pl ai nt i ffs t o est ab li sh caus at i on of harm i n t he for m of detr i m ent al r el ianc e t o r ecove ractual damages for v io latio n o f

E F T A ’s n o tice re q u ire m e n ts); B r ow n v. B ank of Am. , N. A. , 457 F. Supp. 2d 82, 90 ( D
. M as s . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat detr i m ent al r el i ance i s r equi r ed t o r ecove ractual damages for v io lat io n o f

E F T A ’s n o tice re q u ire m e n ts); P ol o v. G oodi ngs Super m arket

s , I nc. , 232 F. R
. D
. 399, 408 ( M
. D
. Fl a. 2004) (acceptin g th e c o n ten tio n th a t ev e ryp o ten tial c las s m em ber m ust pr ove detr i m ent al r el i ance on err oneous fee pos t i ngs t o r ecove r a c tu a l d a ma g e s u n d e rEFTA)
. Val l i e s p o i n t s t o S a vrn och v. F i rs tA m . B ankcar d, I

nc. , N o. 07- C

- 0241, 2007 W L 3171302 ( E
. D. W i s . Oct
. 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ) , whe r e t h e c o u r tc o n c l u d e d r e l i a nce w as n o tr equi r ed t o obt ai n damages “fora vi ol at i on of the E FT A ’ s pr o h ibit ion o n fee s notpr oper l ydi s cl os ed, § 1 6 9 3 b (d )( 3 )( C ).” Id

. a t * 3 . B u t Savr noch expl i ci t l y agre ed “thatt he pl ai n l anguage of § 1693m ( a) ( 1) r equi r es t hat [Pl ai nt i ff] s how caus at i on of harm t hr ough detr i m ent al r el i ance w hen a pl ai nt i ff c l aim s a vi ol at i on of the EF T A ’ s not i ce p r ovi s i ons , § 1693b( d) ( 3) ( B )
. ” I d. I tt hen dr ew a “di s t i nct i on betw een § 1693b( d) ( 3) ( C ) , a st atut or y pr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t i ng t he i m pos i t i on of fee s , and § 1693b( d) ( 3) ( B ) , a s t atut or ypr ovi s i on r equi r i ng pr opernot i ce, ” i d. at* 3 , concl udi ng “detr i m ent al r el i ance i s notneede d t o pr ove caus at i on” foral l eged vi ol at i onsT h is dis tin c tio n , o rig in a lly d ra w n b y th e sa m e M a g istra te 15 J udge i n Ma

y o tte v . A s s o c ia te d

B a n k , N .A ., N o. 07- C

- 0033, 2007 W L 2358646 ( E
. D
. W i s . A ug. 17, 2007) and V o e k s v. W a lMar t St or es , I

nc. , N o. 07 -C -0030 , 20 07 W L 23 58 64 5 ( E
. D
. W i s. A ug. 17, 2007) , has been r ej ect ed i n V oeks v. P i l ot TravelC trs. , 5 6 0 F
. S u p p . 2 d 7 1 8 (E
. D
. W is. 2 0 0 8 ). B ec au se th e c lai m s h ere ar e underT I L A , and notE FT A , w e m ake no j udgm entabout E FT A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on and expr es s no opi ni on on w hethert he di s t i nct i on i s appr opr i at e. I tappea r s V al l i es di d notr ai s e t he C E B A ar gum ent i n t he 16 D i s t r i ctC our t , and i thas t her efor e bee n w ai ved. 25 o f § 1 6 9 3 b (d )( 3 )( C ). I

d. a t * 4
. B e c a u se th e d istin c tio n is

15 in a p p lic a b le to T IL A , Savr noch i s i nappos i t e. T he C om pet i t i ve E qual i t y B anki ng A ct o f 1987 ( “C E B A ”) , 12 U
. S. C
. § 3806, al s o does notcon fli ct w i t h t he detr i m ent al r el i ance r equi r ement
. C E B A does notdefi ne a di s cl os ur e r equi r ement
. I t im p o ses a c ap on the maxi m um i nt er es tr at e that m ay be appl i ed t o an adj us t abl e r at e mort gage l oan. 12 U
. S. C
. § 3806( a) ( “A ny adj us t abl e r at e mort gage l oan or i gi nat ed bya cr edi t ors hal l i ncl ude a l im it at i on on t he m axi m um i nt er es tr at e thatm ayappl ydur i ng t he t erm of the m or t gage l oan.”)
. A l t hough C E B A r equi r es t hati t s vi ol at i ons be tr eat ed as T I L A vi ol at i ons , 12 U
. S. C
. § 3806( c) , i tcr eat es no in c o n sis ten c yw ith th e d e trim e n tal re lian c e re q u ire m e n t. 1626 Fi nal l y , t he Supr eme C our t ’ s j ur i s prudence on R ul e 10b5 u n d e r th e S e c u ritie s a n d E x c h a n g e A c t o f 1 9 3 4 is in a p p o site t o ouranal y sis he r e. Pr oof of a m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on or o m iss io n m a yb e su f

f icie n t to re c o v e r a c tu a l d a m a g e s f o r R u le 1 0 b -5 vio lat ion s . S ee B as i c, I nc. v. Levi ns on , 485 U
. S. 224, 2 4 5

– 4 7 (1 9 8 8 ); Mill

s v. E lec . A u to -L it e, 396 U
. S. 375, 381–85 ( 1970)
. B utR ul e 10b- 5 cas es ar e di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e they i nv olve the un i qu e rol e of secu ri t i es m arket s. “B ecause m ost publ i cl yavai l abl e i nfor m at i on i s r efl ect ed i n [the] m arketpr i ce, an invest or’ s r el i ance o n an ypu bli c m at eri al m i sr epresent at i on s, the re f o re, m ayb e p resu m ed fo r pu rpo ses o f a R u le 10 b -5 act i on. ” B a sic , 48 5 U
. S
. at 9 9 2 ; se e a lso N e w to n v . Me rr ill Lynch , 259 F. 3d 154, 174–77 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( di s cus s i ng w hen a pr es um pt i on of r el i ance i s pr oper i n s ecur i t i es l i t i gat i on)
. T he re lian c e p re su m p tio n u n d e r R u le 1 0 b -5 , ca rv e d o u t sp e c if ica lly f o r th e u n iq u e n a tu re o f

th e se c u rities m a rk e ts, d o e s n o t ap p ly h e re , an d th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly r e f u se d to e x ten d it t o § 1 6 4 0 (a). E
. T her e i s al s o no i nco ns i s t encybetw een the detr i m ent al r el i ance r equi r ementand other T I L A pr ovi s i ons t hatgovern t he r efund of

pr o h ibit ed pr epaym entpenal t i es , 15 U
. S. C
. § 1615, pr ovi de a bor r ow er a r i ghtt o r es ci nd cert ai n cr edi tt r ans act i ons u n t i l a l l r e q u i r e d ma t e r i a l d i s c l o s u r e s a r e d e l i v e r e d , 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 3 5 , an d p ro h ib it a v a rie tyo f c re d it ch a rg e s f

o r c e rta in m or t g a g e s , 1 5 U. S. C. § 1 6 3 9
. Th a tt h e s e TI LA pr o v i s i ons s peci fi cal l ypr ovi de forr es ci s s i on and r es t i tut i on- t ype r emedi esN ot abl y , §§ 1615 and 1640 ar e unr el at ed bec aus e § 1640 17 defi nes ci vi l l i abi l i t yforvi ol at i ons underPar t s B , D , and E of t he s t atut e, w hi le § 1 6 1 5 i s w i t hi n Par tA
. Sect i on 1635 p ro v id e s th e re sc iss io n re m e d y in d e p e n d e n tly , e x p licitly , an d in ad d i t i on t o ci vi l damages under§ 1640. 15 U
. S. C
. § 1635( g) ( “[I ] n addi t i on t o r es ci s s i on t he courtm ay aw ard rel i ef unde r se c tio n 1 6 4 0
. . . fo r v io latio n s . . . n o t re lati n g to th e rig h t to r es ci nd. ”) ; 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a) ( defi ni ng ci vi l l i abi l i t yfor“any cre d it o r w h o fa il s to c o m p lyw ith an yreq u ir em en t [o f T IL A ], i n c l u d i n g a n y r e q u i r e m e n tu n d e rs e c t i o n 1 6 3 5 ” )
. S i m i l a r l y, d a m a g e s f

o r th e v io latio n o f

§ 1 6 3 9 a re d e f

in e d in d e p e n d e n tly and expl i ci t l yi n § 1640 i t s el f. 15 U
. S. C
. § 1640( a) ( 4) ( s t at i ng th a t a c re d ito r is lia b le “ in th e c a se o f a f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith a n yre q u ire m e n t u n d e r se c tio n 1 6 3 9
. . . [in ] a n a m o u n t eq u a l to t he s um of al l fi nance char ges and f ee s p ai d byt he co n su m er . . . . ”). 27 d o e s n o t im p lyth a t d e trim e n ta l re lian c e is n o t re q u ire d to recover actual dam ages fo r di scl osure vi olat i on s. 17 W e al s o r e

j e c tVal l i e s ’ s a t t e mptt o d i s t i n g u i s h t he vi ol at i ons cl ai m ed i n t hi s cas e fr om ot herdi s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons of TILA
. I n hi s A m ended C om pl ai nt , V al l i es cl ai m ed t hatSky B a n k f a iled to d isc lo se p a ym e n ts f o r G A P in su ra n c e , an d to acc ountforG A P cover age a s a “f i nance char ge. ” Theref or e, V al l i es plai nly al l eged a dis cl osure viol at i on of T ILA
. B ecause T I L A i ncl udes fi nance char ges i n t he d ef i ni t i on of “mat er i al d iscl o su res,” 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 2 (u), V all ies co n tend s the rec o very28 of ac tual damages for a “m at er i al ” vi ol at i on does notr equi r e a s how i ng of detr i m ent al r el i ance . B ut§ 1640( a)( 1 ) d oes not r efe r ence “mat er i al di s cl os ur es ” and doe s notprov ide for di s t i ncttr ea tmentof “mat er i al ” vi ol at i ons fort he purpos e of cal cul at i ng actual damages
. T her efor e, t he d ef i ni t i on of
“ m a ter ial d isc lo s u r e s” in § 1 6 0 2 (u ) h a s n o re lev a n c e to § 1 6 4 0 (a)(1). T he s ol e author i t yp o tent i al l ypr ovi di ng s uppor tfor d ist ing u ishing b etw ee n d iffe ren t categ o ri es o f d is clos u re viol at i on s i s In re R u ss e ll , 7 2 B
. R
. 8 5 5 (B an k r. E
. D
. P a. 19 8 7 ). R u ss e llarti cu lat ed the test fo r ac tual d am ag es a s o n e w h ere t her e has been a “s ubs t ant i al v iolat i on” as oppos ed t o a “t echni cal v iol at i on. ” I d. at863 ( “W e bel i eve thatactual dam ages ari se w hen ever a dis cl osure st at em ent cont ai ns a s u b s t a n t i a l v i o l a t i o n , a s o p p o s e d t o a me r e t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i on, and thatdamages s h o u ld b e meas ur ed byt he magni tude of the vi ol at i on. ”)
. A l l cour t s s i nce ha ve r ej ect ed the R u ss e llte s t. See, e .g ., P er r one , 232 F
. 3 d at438 ( “Such a t es t‘ m arks a r adi cal d ep arture f

rom estab li sh ed T ruth in L en d in g ca se law
. ’” (qu o ti n g D
. E d w in S ch m elze r, T ru th in L e n d in gD e v e lo

p m e n ts in 1 9 8 7 : A n A c tive Y

e a r o n S e v e ra l Fro n ts , 43 B us . L aw . 1041, 1 0 6 7 -6 8 (1 9 8 8 )); s ee al s o R alph J. R o h n e r & F red H
. M il ler, Truth i n Lendi ng 8 0 6 n . 1 0 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( r a i s i n g p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e ms wi t h a p p l y i ng R u ss e lla n d su g g e stin g th a t if th is d e c isio n is e m u la te d , it m a yra d ica llya lter th e T IL A b a lan c e b yb ro a d ly a llo w in g re im b u rs e m e n t in a p ri v a te a c tio n ). R u ss e lle rre d in its cat egor i zat i on of di s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons beca us e nothi ng i n t heI n Sc h n a ll , w e ana l y zed TI L A t o i nt erpr etfor m er§ 4310 of 18 t he T rut h i n Savi ngs A ct ( “TISA ”) , 12 U
. S. C
. § § 4301–13, w hi ch w as cl os el ym odel ed af t erT I L A
. 279 F. 3d at217. 29 t extof TILA s uppor t s j ud ici al di s cr et i on i n di s t i ngui s hi ng
“ su b sta n tial” f

ro m “ tec h n ica l” v io latio n s. S im ilarly , n o th in g in T I L A w oul d al l ow us t o t r eat“mat er i al d is cl os ur e” vi ol at i ons d iffe ren tl yfro m v iolati o n s o f o ther T IL A d iscl o su re r equi r ement s for purpos es of r ecove r yof ac tual damages under § 1 6 4 0 (a)(1). F
. V al l i es s ugges t s t he de t r i m ent al r el i ance r equi r ement confl i ct s w i t h ouropi ni ons i n D z adovs ky v

. Lyo n s For d Sal es C o. , 59 3 F
. 2 d 538 ( 3d C i r . 1979) , and Sch n a ll v. A m b o y N a t’ l B ank , 279 F. 3d 205 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. I n D z adovs ky , w e s t at ed that a T ILA vi ol at i on i s “pr es um ed t o i nj ur e a borr ow erby f ru stra tin g ” T IL A ’s p u rp o se . B u t D z adovs ky i n v o l v e d s o l e l y a cl ai m fors t atut or ydamages
. A s not ed, s t atut or ydamages do not r equi r e detr i m ent al r el i ance . I n Sc h n a ll , w e s t at ed that “the TILA j ur i s prudence overw hel m i ngl y r ej ect s anyr el i ance r equi r ement
. ” Sc h n a ll , 279 F .3 d a t 2 1 9
. A g a in , Sc h n a ll i nv olved sol el yst atutorydam ages.

18 In f a c t, w e n o te d th a t “[ t] o re c o v e r a c tu a l d a m a g e s , h o w e v e r, a pl ai nt i ff mustobvi ous l ys how t hathe s uffe r ed s om e fi nanci al harm t hathe w oul d not have s uffe r ed
. . . . ” Id

. a t 2 1 9 n .1 0 ; s ee al s o i d. at 215 n. 5 ( “R el i ance m i ght be r el evant
. . . forpurpos esW e not e thatt he D ist ri ctC our ts uppor t ed i t s gr antof 19 su m m a ryju d g m e n t b y re c iti n g a f o u r-p ro n g tes t f

ro m th e E ig h th Ci r c u i t : “ a pl ai nt i f

f mus ts h o w t h a t‘ ( 1 ) h e r e a d t h e TI LA di s cl os ure s t at ement ; ( 2) he under s t ood t he cha r ges bei ng di s cl os ed; ( 3) had the di s cl os ur e s t at em en t be en ac cur at e, he w oul d have s oughta l ow erpr i ce; and ( 4) he w oul d have obt ai ned a l ow erpr i ce. ’ ” M em. O r derat10 ( ci t i ng P et ers , 220 F. 3d at 917)
. N o doubt a pl ai nt i ff w ho can s at i s fyt he P et ers t est w i l l s uccessfu ll yestab li sh d etri m en tal rel i ance . A l though P eters has been i nfl uent i al i n m anycour t s , i ncl udi ng t hos e i n our c ir c u it, e. g. , C annon v. C her r y Hi l lToyot a, I

nc. , 161 F. Supp. 2d 362 ( D
. N
. J
. 2001) , ot her s h av e us ed di ffe r entl anguage . For acc ur acy - of- di s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons l i ke the ones p rese nt ed her e, 30 o f d ete rm in in g ac tual (i n co n tr ast t o statu tory ) da m ag es.”). In s um , w e have neverr ej ect ed the req ui r ementof detr i m ent al reli an ce to rec o v er a ctua l dam ag es f o r T IL A d iscl o su re viol at i on s. III
. T hi s cas e does notpr es entan occa s i on t o eval uat e w hi ch s peci fi c fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s cons t i tut e detr i m ent al r el i ance b ec au se V all ies d o es n o t co n te n d that h e re li ed o n S k yB an k ’s di s cl o su r e vi ol at i ons . B eca us e w e fi nd t hata s how i ng of d etri m en tal reli an ce is req u ir ed to r ec o v er actua l d am ag es fo r a T I L A di s cl os ur e vi ol at i on, and V al l i es nei t herpl ed norm ade s uch s how i ng, t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entw as pr operon t he cl ai m for actual dam ages. 19o t h e r c o u r t s h a v e h e l d t h a t d e t r i m e n t a l r e l i a n c e c a n b e s h o wn w her e pl ai nt i ffs can e s t abl i s h t hatt heyw oul d have f or egone the lo a n c o m p le telyh a d th e yre c e iv e d a n d re v iew e d a n a c c u ra te d is c lo s u re . See, e. g. , U ni ted S tates v. P etr of

f

- K l i ne , 557 F. 3d 285, 297 ( 6t h C i r . 2009) ( “To e s t abl i s h detr i m ent al r el i ance , t he debt orm us td em ons t r at e thathe ors he w oul d ei t herhave r e c e iv e d a b e tter in ter e st ra te f o r th e lo a n s e lse w h e re o r w o u ld have e l ect ed nott o t ake the l oan had the r eq ui r ed i nfor m at i on b e e n a v a ilab le.” ); McD on ald v. C hecks-N -Ad van ce, Inc. (

In re Fe r r e ll) , 539 F. 3d 1186, 1192 ( 9t h C i r . 2008) ( “The cons um er m ustshow t hat she ‘w ou l d either hav e secured a be t t er i nter est r a t e e l s e wher e, orfor egone the l oan compl et el y . ’ ” ( quot i ng G o ld C o u n try L e n d e rs v . Sm ith ( I n r e Sm i th) , 2 8 9 F
. 3 d at 11 5 7 )); St outv. J. D

. B

yr i der , 2 2 8 F .3 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 8 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). N evert hel es s , pl ai nt i ff he r e does notass er tand ca nnot pr ove he detr i m ent al l y r el i ed. T hi s cas e does not p rese n t t he occa s i on t o for m ul at e fa ct or s t hatm aycons t itut e detr i m ent al r el i ance . 31