In Acosta v Target Corp (Sept 23, 2010), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Target’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by a consumer alleging that the store’s substitution of his store credit card with a general purpose card violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state tort law. The consumer received an unsolicited general purpose Target VISA card, which was designed to replace his store-only credit card. After activating the card, the consumer discovered that the terms and conditions were significantly less favorable than those of his prior store-only credit card. The consumer filed a class action alleging violations of TILA and various state law causes of action, including fraud. The district court denied Target’s motion, finding that the consumer properly stated a violation of TILA’s prohibition against the issuance of unsolicited credit cards because the Target VISA card was not a mere “substitute card” and was therefore not exempt from that prohibition. The court also held that the consumer stated a claim for violation of TILA’s disclosure requirements because the relevant facts indicated that the new card did not upgrade the existing account, but instead opened a new account for which certain disclosures were required. Finally, the district court found that the consumer’s common law fraud claim was not preempted by TILA because state law fraud claims served to enforce TILA’s disclosure requirements.