The action alleged that Fleet sent out credit card offers that promised that the percent interest rate offered was "NOT an introductory rate" and that "it won't go up in just a few short months." When consumers like named plaintiff Denise Roberts applied and received a Fleet card, they also allegedly received a lengthy "cardholder agreement" that said: "We have the right to change any of the terms of this agreement at any time." Ms. Roberts, who allegedly received a card with a fixed rate of 7.99 percent, got a letter 13 months later that informed her that her rate had been increased to 10.5 percent. Allegedly, the advertisements for these credit cards listed only two conditions that could cause the rate to change, leading consumers to assume that only those conditions could result in a rate increase.

It appeared that Fleet had won when the trial court dismissed the action in June 2001. Upon appeal, however, the court ruled that the federal claim was valid and should be litigated, though the state law claims were preempted by federal law. The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the primary regulator of national banks under the National Bank Act, has sole power to regulate false and misleading advertising in actions like this one.

The appellate court found that Congress amended the TILA in 1988 because it determined that consumers were being inundated with credit card solicitations that failed to disclose basic cost information about the cards being promoted. Prior to the passage of the Fair Credit and Charge Card Disclosure Act, the TILA did not require issuers to provide such information until the consumer actually received the card. The court ruled that Congress decided that demanding early disclosure of relevant cost information from credit card companies would enable consumers to shop around for the best cards. According to the court's interpretation, under the TILA a credit card provider must disclose certain information in direct mail applications and solicitations, including annual percentage rates.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel found that "Fleet's solicitation materials could cause a reasonable consumer to be confused" about how long the low rate would last. It ruled that Fleet's practice of telling consumers that the APR can be changed at any time only after the acceptance of the invitation is contrary to the TILA mandate that credit card solicitations disclose all required information.