Lenders must clearly disclose the true cost of credit before you sign
The lender is asserting that the borrower's signature functions as a complete waiver of all objections — that 'you agreed to the terms' ends the analysis. This is a Signature as Waiver fallacy: it treats consent to a contract as equivalent to a valid, informed waiver of statutory rights, which is not the same thing. Informed consent requires that the borrower was given the information the law requires before signing. If the lender failed to make the required TILA disclosures, the consent was not informed and the agreement cannot be used to preclude the borrower's statutory rights. This fallacy is particularly powerful because it has an intuitive appeal — people do feel bound by what they sign. But contract law has always recognized the doctrine of misrepresentation, and consumer protection law goes further: it imposes affirmative duties on lenders that are not satisfied by the borrower's signature. The Truth in Lending Act requires the lender to act before the signing, not the borrower to protect themselves through careful reading of documents they were never given. The statement 'the rate is competitive' is also potentially a misrepresentation if the rate quoted is not the APR but a nominal rate that understates the true cost of borrowing. TILA specifically requires APR disclosure because Congress recognized that nominal rates, monthly rates, and other partial disclosures are routinely used to make expensive credit appear affordable.
After you respond, they may push back with these arguments. Members get the full rebuttal for each.