Advertising of pre-credit approvals by non-creditors is likely misleading – Financial Services

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to

Federal banking regulators have guidelines in place regarding the disclosure of pre-approvals for credit and, of course, Regulation Z and the Truth In Lending Act contain provisions regarding how and when a pre-approval may be communicated to clients. Also, a “pre-approval” for credit is a standard that is meant to signify that the consumer’s credit has been assessed to a certain level by the lender (usually through something called pre-screening, or because the customer accepted an initial assessment), and that the consumer will be approved for the credit product, assuming that an interim bankruptcy or other extremely adverse credit event has not occurred.

In a recent case involving Credit Karma as an advertiser, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) found that consumers perceive the message that they have been pre-approved for credit that meets the standard described. According to revelations buried in the ads, Credit Karma claimed that 90% of recipients of “pre-approved” offers would be approved, when in fact more than a third of customers responding to the ad were turned down for the offers. . . And, in order for customers to get pre-approved offers, they had to agree to allow their credit inquiry, which resulted in a “hard pull” of their credit file, an activity that would typically reduce a customer’s credit. consumer. score.

In truth, Credit Karma presented an advertisement telling its customers that they had been pre-approved for various credit products, but had in fact not done any credit screening of the customer and had no contact with creditors providing advertised credit products. As such, this advertisement was found to be misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and despite the FTC’s inability to seek relief for Section 5 violations in federal court, Credit Karma has agreed to pay $3 million to the FTC to resolve the allegations in the administrative complaint the FTC had filed against the company.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Finance and Banking of the United States

When in Doubt – Blame the Bank

Gallet Dreyer & Berkey

Regulators recently burst in with statements regarding the alleged “abusive” practice of banks charging multiple NSF checks when a check issued by a depositor is returned unpaid…

FCA and SEC Annual Reports – 2022 Comparison

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

As the competent financial market authorities in their respective jurisdictions, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)…


Add Comment