James A. McCoy held a credit card issued by Chase Bank USA, N.A.
McCoy's cardholder agreement with Chase stated that he would receive preferred rates (lower interest rates) if he met certain conditions, such as making at least the required minimum payments when due. Without informing McCoy in advance of the increase, Chase raised the rates on McCoy's card when he defaulted on a payment. McCoy ti led a complaint in a California state court against Chase for increasing the interest rate and applying that increase retroactively. Chase removed the action to the federal district court. McCoy claimed that Chase had violated Regulation Z by failing to notify him of the increase until after it had taken effect. He argued that he was entitled to notice from Chase before it raised the interest rate on his credit card due to his delinquency or default. In 2009, Congress enacted credit-card rules that amended the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) to require fortyfive days' advance notice of most increases in credit-card annual percentage rates. Chase, however, had increased McCoy's interest rate before the new rules were enacted. Before the 2009 amendments to TILA's credit-card rules took effect, did Regulation Z require a lender to provide a cardholder with a change-in-terms notice before raising the cardholder's interest rate following delinquency or default?
Explain. How did the amendments change the law?