Court Opinion

ID: 9518414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:52:14.583472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:54.117989
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: Upon reconsideration, I am convinced that it was not the intent of the legislature to include retail establishments under the purview of the Credit Services Organizations Act (the Act) (815 ILCS 605/1 et seq. (West 1998)). I would reverse the trial court and I now, therefore, respectfully dissent. Section 2(a) of the Act, wherein the legislature declares the general purpose of the Act, states that the purpose of the Act is to protect consumers from “[cjertain advertising and business practices of some companies engaged in the business of credit services [which create] a financial hardship upon the people of this State.” (Emphasis added.) 815 ILCS 605/2(a) (West 1996). Section 2(a) also provides that “consumers who have experienced credit problems may seek assistance from credit service businesses which offer to improve the credit standing of such consumers.” (Emphasis added.) (815 ILCS 605/2(a) (West 1998). Based upon these statements of legislative purpose I would find that the intent of the Act was to regulate businesses that advertise to consumers as providing credit services and those that are engaged primarily in the business of credit services, not businesses offering such services only as an adjunct to retail sales. Unlike the majority, I cannot find that the Act should apply to retailers based upon policy considerations, a function best left to the legislature or our supreme court.