## Facts

- Carrie Mars bought an automobile from Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., using credit that was assigned/financed through First National Bank of South Carolina.
- Mars sued the dealer and bank under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the then-applicable (pre-1980/81) Regulation Z, challenging the adequacy of the credit sale disclosures.
- The disclosure form used the term “amount financed” where the regulation required the specific term “unpaid balance” for a defined component of the amount financed.
- Certain numerical disclosures in the “Late Payment” and “Prepayment” portions of the form were printed in eight-point type rather than the required ten-point type.
- Defendants conceded these deviations but characterized them as merely technical.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, reasoning that technical violations causing no actual injury did not create liability.
- Mars appealed; the applicable regulatory regime was the pre-1980/81 statute and regulation because the creditors did not elect the revised scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether a creditor may avoid TILA/Regulation Z civil liability for conceded disclosure-form violations by showing the consumer suffered no actual injury or was otherwise adequately informed.
2. Whether failure to use mandated terminology and mandated type size constitutes actionable noncompliance under the pre-1980/81 Regulation Z.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the conceded departures from Regulation Z were violations of TILA and Regulation Z.
- The court rejected the district court’s “technical violation/no injury” rationale and held liability is not conditioned on proof of actual damages or effect on the consumer’s credit choice.

## Legal Principles

- Under TILA and the pre-1980/81 Regulation Z, statutory civil liability may attach for disclosure violations without proof of actual consumer injury.
- Courts may not excuse noncompliance as “technical” based on a retrospective conclusion that the borrower was sufficiently informed or the violation could not have affected the credit decision.
- When creditors elect to comply with a particular regulatory scheme during a transition period, they must comply fully with that scheme and may not mix requirements from different versions.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that TILA’s remedial scheme imposes civil liability for conceded Regulation Z disclosure violations—such as using incorrect mandated terminology and printing required numerical disclosures in an insufficient type size—without requiring the consumer to prove actual injury, and it remanded for further proceedings.


Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 713 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1983)