In the complaints, we alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations by both deceptively withholding information as well as providing false information to borrowers, such as interest rates, certain fees, or the presence of balloon payments. Two of the orders required defendants to post performance bonds before they can extend certain types of credit in the future, and another one included an outright ban on certain lending. All of the orders imposed significant injunctive relief designed to protect past and future borrowers. Under the FTC Act, an unfair act or practice must be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. I concluded that, if adequately informed about the loan terms and the monthly payments required, consumers should be able to reasonably avoid being injured by asset-based lending by the simple step of not taking loans that obligate them to make monthly payments in excess of their incomes.
Consumers similarly can decline to take loans that have objectionable terms.
I thus disagreed with the FTC Act unfairness allegation. I thought it unnecessary, however, to stretch beyond these clear-cut violations to construct expansive theories of law violation based on the FTC's authority to prohibit unfairness. Settlement with Fleet In 1999, the Commission reached an administrative consent agreement with Fleet Finance, Inc., settling charges that it violated TILA and the FTC Act. As you probably know, Fleet Finance is a very large mortgage company that offers personal loans and loans secured by consumers' homes. Fleet also purchases consumer credit agreements.