We believe that the section of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act that you cite, Section 2N, would apply to a national bank’s use of interpreters. In one of the few cases interpreting this statute, a court applied Section 2N to a mortgage lender in residential loan transaction. Martinez v. Freedon Mortg. Team, Inc., 527 F.Supp.2d 827, 836 (N.D. Ill., 2007).

However, we note that there may be an argument that it does not apply. The Act contains a major exemption — it does not apply to “transactions specifically authorized by” any regulation or law. But there is no federal regulation or law that authorizes banks to provide interpreters without the disclosures required in the Act. 815 ILCS 505/10b(1)see also Hill v. St. Paul Federal Bank for Sav., 768 N.E.2d 322, 327 (1st Dist. 2002) (“the inquiry must first be made whether any law authorizes the nondisclosure”).

Section 2N of the Act provides that when a “person” engages in a “retail transaction” with a “consumer,” if that transaction is conducted through an interpreter and if a written contract is entered into, the consumer, and any third-party interpreters, must sign certain disclosures. 815 ILCS 505/2N. (The Illinois Banking Act also sanctions the use of foreign language interpreters. 205 ILCS 5/5f.) The statute does not define “retail transaction,” but it defines a “consumer” and “person” as follows: a person is “any natural person or his legal representative, partnership, corporation (domestic and foreign), company, trust, business entity or association . . .” and a consumer is “any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household.” 815 ILCS 505/1(c), (e). (Note that the term “merchandise” has a broad definition that includes intangibles, real estate, and services.)

Section 2N’s disclosure requirements may apply to your bank, but there is some ambiguity as to when the disclosures are required. If a retail transaction or related negotiations are conducted in a language other than English and if the customer uses an interpreter, you must have the customer sign disclosure forms as set out in the statute. (There are two disclosures forms that could be required: one if using in-house interpreters, another if using third-party interpreters.) However, the statute does not define what an “interpreter” is or what would trigger the disclosure requirements. The disclosures require the borrower to affirm that “[t]he obligations of the contract or other written agreement were explained to me in my native language,” so it seems that disclosure would be necessary only if explanations are given in the customer’s native language, and not necessarily if you merely provide translated loan documents. 815 ILCS 505/2N. In one of the few cases interpreting this statute, the court distinguished an interpreter role from a translator role. Martinez v. Freedon Mortg. Team, Inc., 527 F.Supp.2d 827, 836 (N.D. Ill., 2007). But that case also uses the Black’s legal dictionary definition of interpreter, which encompasses both oral and written translators: “Black’s Law Dictionary 838 (8th ed.2004) defines ‘interpreter’ as a ‘person who translates, esp. orally, from one language to another.’” Id.